@prefix case128: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix owl: . @prefix proeth: . @prefix proeth-cases: . @prefix prov: . @prefix rdfs: . @prefix xsd: . a owl:Ontology ; rdfs:label "ProEthica Case 128 Ontology" ; dcterms:created "2026-02-28T22:14:48.637649"^^xsd:dateTime ; owl:imports , . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "1960s–1970s legal challenges before BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, 84-2" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672830"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Advertising_Ethics_Norms_Evolved a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Event" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671897"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Advertising Ethics Norms Evolved (Event 6) → Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1) and Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672241"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:AllEngineers-Advertising-AntitrustandCommercialFreeSpeech-Tempering a proeth:Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "AllEngineers-Advertising-AntitrustandCommercialFreeSpeech-Tempering" ; proeth:casecontext "The BER's acknowledgment that advertising ethics opinions are now tempered by antitrust and commercial free speech cautions, limiting the scope of permissible ethics guidance on advertising." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:constrainedentity "NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional Ethics Bodies" ; proeth:constraintclass "Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "The BER's evaluation of engineering advertising ethics is constrained by antitrust and commercial free speech considerations arising from 1960s-1970s legal challenges to professional codes, limiting permissible advertising ethics guidance to the two primary considerations of truthfulness/non-deception and state registration law conformance." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "First Amendment commercial free speech doctrine; U.S. antitrust law; BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, 84-2" ; proeth:sourcetext "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations" ; proeth:temporalscope "Applies to all BER advertising ethics opinions issued after the 1960s-1970s legal challenges" ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations", "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective", "contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.665989"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:AllEngineers-Advertising-StateRegistrationLaw-Conformance a proeth:AdvertisingStateRegistrationLawConformanceConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "AllEngineers-Advertising-StateRegistrationLaw-Conformance" ; proeth:casecontext "The BER's identification of state registration law conformance as one of the two primary considerations governing engineering advertising ethics." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineers and Engineering Firms (General)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Advertising State Registration Law Conformance Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "All engineering advertising activities must conform to the registration laws and rules of professional practice of each state in which the advertising occurs, satisfying both the letter and spirit of applicable state registration requirements, including restrictions on soliciting work in states where the engineer or firm is not duly licensed." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering registration laws and rules of practice" ; proeth:sourcetext "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice" ; proeth:temporalscope "Applies to all advertising activities in all jurisdictions" ; proeth:textreferences "some states have regulations which prohibit engineers or engineering firms from seeking or performing work in a particular state unless the engineer or engineering firm is duly licensed or registered in that state", "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice", "the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code", "this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.665700"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:AllEngineers-MarketingMaterial-AccuracyCurrency-Ongoing a proeth:MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "AllEngineers-MarketingMaterial-AccuracyCurrency-Ongoing" ; proeth:casecontext "The BER's closing observation that engineers and firms must keep marketing materials accurate and current, noting that electronic tools have reduced the burden of doing so." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineers and Engineering Firms (General)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "All engineers and engineering firms are constrained to continuously maintain and update marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure accuracy, truthfulness, and non-deception regarding qualifications and licensure status, with the electronic era reducing the cost and time burden of compliance." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics" ; proeth:sourcetext "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:temporalscope "Ongoing — applies continuously throughout the engineer's or firm's practice" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible", "In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced", "These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications", "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.665497"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Antitrust_Commercial_Speech_Tempering_of_Advertising_Ethics_Recognition a proeth:Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopeRecognitionObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Antitrust Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics Recognition" ; proeth:casecontext "The Board acknowledges over 30 prior BER cases on advertising and notes that legal challenges have constrained the scope of ethics code provisions on advertising, citing BER cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:obligatedparty "NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Engineers generally" ; proeth:obligationclass "Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Recognition Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "The Board was obligated to recognize that ethics opinions on advertising are tempered by antitrust and commercial free speech considerations arising from legal challenges during the 1960s–1970s, and to frame advertising ethics analysis within those constraints while still applying the truthfulness and non-deception standards of the NSPE Code." ; proeth:sourcetext "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:temporalscope "Throughout the Board's analysis of advertising ethics questions" ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations", "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective", "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.663214"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Antitrust_and_Commercial_Speech_Tempering_of_Advertising_Ethics a proeth:Antitrust-ConstrainedEthicsCodeScopePrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card distribution practices", "Engineering advertising ethics generally" ; proeth:balancingwith "Honesty in Professional Representations", "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board acknowledges that over 30 prior BER cases on advertising have been tempered by legal challenges related to commercial free speech and antitrust, requiring that contemporary advertising ethics guidance operate within those legal constraints" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "Ethics opinions on advertising must be calibrated to avoid imposing restrictions that would violate antitrust law or suppress legitimate commercial speech, while still maintaining core honesty and non-deception obligations" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board navigates this by focusing ethics guidance on the content of advertising (truthfulness, non-deception) rather than its form or frequency, which would risk antitrust entanglement" ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations", "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective", "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.657637"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_Advertising_Ethics_Historical_Evolution_Awareness_Application a proeth:AdvertisingEthicsHistoricalEvolutionAwarenessCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Application" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize and apply the historical evolution of advertising ethics — from pre-1960s prohibitionist approaches through antitrust and commercial free speech challenges — arriving at the contemporary two-primary-considerations framework (truthfulness and state registration conformance) for evaluating advertising ethics." ; proeth:casecontext "BER framing of the analytical approach to business card ethics across all four situations" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Explicit acknowledgment that advertising ethics opinions have changed over time, identification of the legal challenges of the 1960s and 1970s as the driver of change, and articulation of the contemporary two-consideration framework" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "expert" ; proeth:sourcetext "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations.", "This Board believes that contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics.", "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.670502"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_Advertising_Ethics_Precedent_Corpus_Navigation_for_Business_Card_Analysis a proeth:AdvertisingEthicsBERPrecedentCorpusNavigationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER Advertising Ethics Precedent Corpus Navigation for Business Card Analysis" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Advertising Ethics BER Precedent Corpus Navigation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "The BER demonstrated the capability to navigate the extensive corpus of over 30 prior advertising ethics cases — including key antitrust-framework cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 — to ground its analysis of business card ethics in a well-developed precedent framework." ; proeth:casecontext "BER analysis of business card distribution ethics across four situations involving Engineer A" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Reference to the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifying over 30 prior advertising cases, and specific citation of cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 as establishing the antitrust and commercial free speech framework for contemporary advertising ethics analysis" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "expert" ; proeth:sourcetext "the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations." ; proeth:textreferences "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective.", "The manner in which engineers advertise, represent themselves, or offer their services to the public has long been a subject of NSPE Board of Ethical Review opinions.", "the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.670270"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_Case_79-6 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER_Case_79-6" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.97" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 79-6" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ; proeth:sourcetext "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective." ; proeth:textreferences "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics" ; proeth:version "1979" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.644566"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_Case_82-1 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER_Case_82-1" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.97" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 82-1" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ; proeth:sourcetext "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective." ; proeth:textreferences "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics" ; proeth:version "1982" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.644849"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_Case_84-2 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER_Case_84-2" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.97" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 84-2" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ; proeth:sourcetext "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective." ; proeth:textreferences "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Cited as incorporating the perspective of commercial free speech and antitrust considerations into engineering advertising ethics" ; proeth:version "1984" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.645026"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_Consolidated_Reference_Table a proeth:ReferenceMaterial, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER_Consolidated_Reference_Table" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "BER Consolidated Reference Table" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:resourceclass "Reference Material" ; proeth:sourcetext "the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations" ; proeth:textreferences "the BER Consolidated Reference Table identifies over 30 previous cases directly dealing with advertising considerations" ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Cited to demonstrate the breadth of prior BER advertising opinions; identifies over 30 previous cases dealing with advertising considerations" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.644340"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_case_number_79-6 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER case number 79-6" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666286"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_case_number_82-1 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER case number 82-1" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666356"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_case_number_84-2 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER case number 84-2" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666401"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:BER_opinions_79-6_82-1_and_84-2_before_present_BER_opinion_analysis a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER opinions 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 before present BER opinion analysis" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672364"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Card_Licensure_Representation_Standard a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureRepresentationStandard, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business_Card_Licensure_Representation_Standard" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer." ; proeth:textreferences "If the engineer is not licensed in the state where he/she resides... then the card should clearly indicate the state(s) in which the person is licensed.", "business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer.", "the engineer whose name and 'P.E.' designation appears on a business card is licensed in the state indicated by the physical address on the card." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "The normative standard developed and applied by the BER governing how engineers must represent licensure status on business cards, including the requirement to list a physical address and identify states of licensure to avoid deception" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.645803"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Card_Licensure_Representation_Standard_Instance a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureRepresentationStandard, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business_Card_Licensure_Representation_Standard_Instance" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.97" ; proeth:createdby "Professional engineering ethics bodies and state licensing boards" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:documenttitle "Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only", "business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E", "business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:usedby "Engineer A across all four situations; Engineer D in Situation 4" ; proeth:usedincontext "Directly governs all four situations: whether omitting state licensure identifiers, listing an address in an unlicensed state, or distributing a card outside one's licensed jurisdiction constitutes deceptive or misleading representation of licensure status" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.639006"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Card_Mailing_Address_Disclosure_Obligation_Invoked_Situation_1 a proeth:BusinessCardMailingAddressDisclosureObligationinMulti-StatePractice, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card lacking mailing address presented at business meeting in State E" ; proeth:balancingwith "PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's Situation 1 business card omits a mailing address in addition to omitting states of licensure, compounding the misleading impression that the engineer may be available for engineering practice in State E where the card is presented." ; proeth:confidence "0.78" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "The absence of a mailing address prevents recipients from identifying the geographic base of the engineer's practice and cross-referencing licensure status, contributing to the overall misleading character of the Situation 1 card." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation in Multi-State Practice" ; proeth:sourcetext "does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:tensionresolution "Both the mailing address omission and the state-of-licensure omission contribute to the ethics concern in Situation 1; Situation 2's compliance demonstrates that both elements are achievable." ; proeth:textreferences "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.650557"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a proeth:BusinessCardNon-SolicitationCharacterPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument — General Principle Invocation" ; proeth:appliedto "Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer", "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:balancingwith "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation", "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board establishes that distributing a business card in any context — business or social — does not constitute an offer to perform engineering work, because formal solicitation requires purpose-specific documents such as SOQs, proposals, and contracts" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "This principle liberates engineers from the concern that handing out a business card in a state where they are not licensed automatically constitutes unlicensed solicitation; the ethical and legal analysis must focus on whether formal solicitation instruments are being used" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Business Card Non-Solicitation Character Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "the act of an engineer handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not, ipso facto, rise to the level of an offer to do work" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves the tension by distinguishing the communicative act (card exchange as social/business etiquette) from the legal act (offer to perform work), reserving the latter for formal instruments" ; proeth:textreferences "This Board does not take the position that handing out a business card, in whatever setting, is tantamount to offering to do work.", "it is the opinion of this Board that the act of an engineer handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not, ipso facto, rise to the level of an offer to do work, either personally or on behalf of an engineer's firm", "other documents exist expressly for the purpose of securing work, such as statements of qualifications, proposals, contracts and the like" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.658195"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Development_Representative_Business_Card_Clarity a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Business Card Clarity" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "A business development marketing engineer must possess capability to present licensure status information on business cards with sufficient clarity — identifying states of licensure, including a mailing address, and differentiating office location from licensure jurisdiction — across all states where cards are distributed." ; proeth:casecontext "Business development representative distributing PE-designated cards at business meetings in multiple states." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Obligation to distribute PE-designated cards that correctly identify licensure states and include a mailing address when conducting business development activities across multiple states." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.654248"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Development_Representative_Business_Card_Offer-to-Work_Boundary_Recognition a proeth:BusinessCardOffer-to-WorkBoundaryDiscriminationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Recognition" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Discrimination Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "A business development representative must possess the capability to recognize that tendering a business card at business and social functions does not constitute an offer to do engineering work, while also recognizing that engaging in business development activities without firm licensure in the state crosses the line into deception beyond mere card tendering." ; proeth:casecontext "Business development representative operating in states where the firm may or may not have licensed engineers" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.89" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Correct assessment of when business card distribution constitutes permissible business etiquette versus when broader business development activities without firm licensure constitute impermissible solicitation" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Business Development Representative" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.", "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states", "the act of an engineer handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not, ipso facto, rise to the level of an offer to do work" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.669673"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Development_Representative_Business_Development_Marketing_Engineer a proeth:BusinessDevelopmentMarketingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer" ; proeth:attributes "{'personal_licensure': 'Not necessarily licensed in the state where business development occurs', 'firm_licensure': 'Firm must be duly licensed in the state for conduct to be ethical', 'function': 'Business development, client outreach, card distribution'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "A representative of an engineering firm who focuses on business development and tenders business cards at business and social functions in states where the representative may not be personally licensed, but where the firm employs duly licensed engineers. The BER holds this ethical only when the firm itself is licensed in the state." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineering Firm with State-Licensed Engineers'}", "{'type': 'represents', 'target': 'Engineering Firm with State-Licensed Engineers'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "employer_relationship" ; proeth:roleclass "Business Development Marketing Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state" ; proeth:textreferences "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state", "it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.646883"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a proeth:FirmLicensurePrerequisiteforBusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeActivity, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure Prerequisite — Ethical Activity" ; proeth:appliedto "Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer", "Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers" ; proeth:balancingwith "Business Card Non-Solicitation Character Principle", "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "A business development engineer who is not personally licensed in a state may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development in that state, provided the employing firm has duly licensed engineers in that state who will perform the engineering work" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The ethical legitimacy of the representative's activity derives not from personal licensure but from the firm's licensure coverage; the representative is acting as a conduit for a firm that can lawfully perform the work being developed" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Firm Licensure Prerequisite for Business Development Representative Activity" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves the tension between commercial freedom and licensure protection by conditioning the representative's activity on firm-level licensure coverage, ensuring that business development does not outpace the firm's actual licensed capacity" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.", "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state", "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.659720"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Development_Representative_Firm_Licensure_Prerequisite_Ethical_Activity a proeth:BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirmLicensurePrerequisiteComplianceObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Ethical Activity" ; proeth:casecontext "The Board addresses the scenario of a business development engineer who tenders cards at business and social functions in states where the representative is not personally licensed, and establishes the firm-licensure prerequisite as the ethical boundary condition." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Business Development Marketing Engineer / Engineering Firm" ; proeth:obligationclass "Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Compliance Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "A business development representative of an engineering firm may ethically tender business cards and engage in business development in a state where the representative is not personally licensed only if the firm itself has engineers duly licensed in that state; if the firm is not licensed in the state, the representative must not engage in business development activities there." ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:temporalscope "Whenever business development activities are conducted in a state" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card", "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state", "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.661790"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Development_Representative_Firm_Licensure_Prerequisite_Verification a proeth:BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirmLicensurePrerequisiteVerificationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Verification Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "A business development representative of an engineering firm must possess the capability to verify that the firm employs duly licensed engineers in any state where business development activities are conducted, recognizing that tendering business cards and prospecting for work without such firm licensure constitutes deception and violates state engineering laws." ; proeth:casecontext "Business development representative tendering cards at business and social functions in states where the representative may not be personally licensed" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Determination of whether the firm has licensed engineers in a given state before engaging in business development activities, including tendering business cards at business and social functions" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Business Development Representative" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card.", "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state", "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.669408"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Business_Development_Representative_Multi-Jurisdiction_Licensing_Compliance a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Business Development Representative Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Compliance" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "A business development marketing engineer who distributes business cards across multiple states must possess capability to identify and apply the specific licensure disclosure rules of each state where cards are distributed, ensuring compliance with each jurisdiction's requirements." ; proeth:casecontext "Business development representative distributing cards in states where licensure status varies." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Need to comply with varying state rules when distributing PE-designated business cards at business meetings across States B, C, D, and E." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "advanced" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.", "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.654072"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Card_Passed_To_Third_Party a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Card Passed To Third Party" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Event" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671788"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Case_128_Timeline a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Case 128 Timeline" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672883"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:CausalLink_Distribute_Card_on_Social_Visi a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "CausalLink_Distribute Card on Social Visi" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671204"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:CausalLink_Distribute_Cross-State_Jurisdi a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "CausalLink_Distribute Cross-State Jurisdi" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671155"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:CausalLink_Distribute_Fully_Disclosed_PE_ a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "CausalLink_Distribute Fully Disclosed PE " ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671123"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:CausalLink_Distribute_Unlabeled_PE_Busine a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "CausalLink_Distribute Unlabeled PE Busine" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671088"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:CausalLink_Report_Engineer_A_to_Licensure a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "CausalLink_Report Engineer A to Licensure" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671270"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:CausalLink_Share_Card_With_Engineer_D a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "CausalLink_Share Card With Engineer D" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671238"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_1 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_1" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "1" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "301" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "401" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision5 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 1 ; proeth:conclusionText "Situation 1. Engineer A's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics." ; proeth:conclusionType "board_explicit" ; proeth:extractionReasoning "The Board found that Engineer A's distribution of a business card in State E bearing the 'P.E.' title without disclosing the specific states of licensure and without including a physical mailing address was deceptive and violated the NSPE Code of Ethics, as it could mislead the public into believing Engineer A was licensed in State E." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668187"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_101 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_101" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "101" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "401" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 101 ; proeth:conclusionText "Beyond the Board's finding that Situation 1 is unethical, the violation is best understood as arising from the combination of two independent omissions — the absence of a physical mailing address and the failure to identify the states of licensure — rather than from either deficiency alone. The address omission prevents any recipient from inferring a geographic scope of practice, while the licensure-state omission prevents any recipient from verifying whether Engineer A is authorized to practice in their jurisdiction. Together, these omissions create a card that affirmatively invites engineering engagement while withholding every piece of information a prospective client would need to assess Engineer A's legal authority to serve them. Even if one omission standing alone might be characterized as incomplete disclosure rather than material misrepresentation, the cumulative effect of both omissions crosses the threshold into deceptive conduct under Code provisions I.5, III.3, and III.3.a. Correcting only one deficiency — for example, adding a mailing address without identifying licensed states, or listing licensed states without any address — would likely be insufficient to cure the violation, because the remaining omission would still leave a recipient unable to determine whether Engineer A is lawfully available to perform engineering services in their jurisdiction." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668695"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_102 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_102" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "102" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "401" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.8.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 102 ; proeth:conclusionText "The Board's finding that Situation 1 is unethical also implicates the use of the 'P.E.' title in State E, where Engineer A holds no license. Distributing a card bearing the P.E. designation in a jurisdiction where one is not licensed is not merely an advertising irregularity — it may independently constitute a violation of State E's registration laws under Code provision III.8.a, which requires conformance with state registration laws in the practice of engineering. The business card, by identifying Engineer A as a P.E. in the context of a business meeting, functions as at minimum a preliminary solicitation of engineering services. If State E's registration statutes prohibit the use of the P.E. title by unlicensed individuals within the state's borders — as many states' laws do — then the card's distribution in that meeting is independently impermissible regardless of whether a mailing address or licensure states are listed. The Board's analysis focused on the advertising ethics dimensions of the omissions but did not fully develop this independent registration-law dimension, which strengthens the violation finding and suggests that even a corrected card listing licensed states and a mailing address might still be impermissible in State E if Engineer A is not licensed there and the card is being used to solicit engineering work." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668827"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_103 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_103" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "104" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "402" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 103 ; proeth:conclusionText "The Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical, despite the address-licensure geographic mismatch, implicitly establishes that explicit and accurate disclosure of licensed states on a business card is the single most critical variable in distinguishing ethical from unethical multi-state business card practice. By listing States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure while also listing a State E mailing address, Engineer A's Situation 2 card rebuts any inference that State E licensure exists. This precedent suggests that explicit licensure disclosure functions as a corrective mechanism capable of neutralizing the misleading inference that would otherwise arise from a geographic address mismatch. However, this principle has limits: the disclosure must be sufficiently prominent and unambiguous that a reasonable recipient would actually notice and process it. A card that buries licensure-state information in fine print while prominently featuring a State E address might not satisfy the spirit of this standard even if it technically lists the licensed states. The Board's reasoning thus implicitly requires that the disclosure be presented in a manner that a reasonable professional recipient would recognize as a meaningful qualification of the geographic representation, not merely a technical footnote." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668932"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_104 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_104" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "103" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "403" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 104 ; proeth:conclusionText "The Board's finding that Situation 3 is ethical rests critically on the factual premise that Engineer A performs only non-engineering consulting services in State B. This finding carries an important forward-looking implication that the Board did not explicitly address: the ethical compliance of the Situation 3 card is contingent on Engineer A maintaining that service-scope boundary. If Engineer A were to begin performing engineering services out of the State B office — even informally or incidentally — the card would immediately become ethically deficient because it would then represent a licensed P.E. offering engineering services from a location in a jurisdiction where he holds no license, without any disclosure that the State B office is restricted to non-engineering work. This creates an ongoing obligation for Engineer A to proactively update or withdraw the card before any transition in service scope occurs, not merely after the fact. The Marketing Communication Currency Obligation principle supports this conclusion: engineers bear a continuous duty to ensure that their marketing materials accurately reflect their current qualifications and service scope, and a change in the nature of services offered from a listed office location triggers an immediate obligation to revise the card." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669019"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_105 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_105" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "204" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "304" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 105 ; proeth:conclusionText "The Board's finding that Situation 3 is ethical also leaves unresolved a genuine tension between the Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility principle and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle. Even when Engineer A's card accurately states that licensure is held only in State C, a recipient in State C who sees a State B office address alongside the P.E. designation may reasonably infer that licensed engineering services are available from that State B office. The card does not affirmatively state that the State B office is restricted to non-engineering consulting. The Board's conclusion that the card is ethical appears to assume that the explicit notation of State C-only licensure is sufficient to discharge the duty of honest representation, but this assumption may not hold in all distribution contexts. When the card is distributed in State C to clients who may later seek engineering services and contact the State B office, the absence of an explicit scope-of-service qualifier for the State B office creates a residual inferential risk. A more robust ethical practice — though not strictly required by the Board's analysis — would be to add a brief notation on the card clarifying that the State B office provides non-engineering consulting services only, thereby eliminating the ambiguity rather than merely mitigating it through licensure-state disclosure." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669108"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_106 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_106" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "202" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "404" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 106 ; proeth:conclusionText "The Board's finding that Engineer D's complaint in Situation 4 was improper introduces an important but underexplored principle: the duty to report potential violations is not unconditional and must be calibrated against the epistemic quality of the information available to the reporting engineer. Engineer D acted on secondhand information — a card passed through Friend X — without any direct knowledge of the circumstances under which it was distributed, the nature of the meeting in which it was shared, or whether Engineer A had offered or performed any engineering services in State C. The card itself contained only State B information and therefore made no affirmative representation about State C practice. The social context of the original distribution further undermines any inference of unlicensed practice solicitation. The Board's implicit conclusion is that engineers who invoke reporting obligations bear a threshold duty of epistemic verification before filing complaints, particularly when the alleged violation involves a passive instrument like a business card distributed in a non-professional context. Filing a complaint based on secondhand information about a social card exchange, without any evidence of actual engineering solicitation or service in the unlicensed jurisdiction, fails to satisfy the proportionality and prudence standards that the NSPE Code's spirit requires of engineers who exercise reporting authority. This does not eliminate the reporting obligation in cases of genuine evidence, but it does establish that the threshold of certainty required before filing must be proportionate to the severity and clarity of the alleged violation." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669203"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_107 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_107" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "1" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "201" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "203" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision5 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 107 ; proeth:conclusionText "Across all four situations, the Board's analysis collectively establishes a graduated framework for evaluating business card ethics in multi-state engineering practice. At the most permissive end, a card distributed in a purely social context with accurate jurisdictional information raises no ethical concern regardless of where it travels through third-party redistribution (Situation 4). A card that accurately differentiates office locations from licensure jurisdictions and restricts non-licensed-state offices to non-engineering services is ethical when distributed in the licensed state (Situation 3). A card that lists an address in an unlicensed state is ethical if it explicitly and accurately identifies the states of licensure, thereby rebutting any geographic inference of unlicensed practice (Situation 2). A card that omits both address and licensure-state information is unethical because it provides no basis for a recipient to assess the engineer's legal authority to serve them (Situation 1). This framework implies that the core ethical obligation is not geographic alignment between address and licensure, but rather informational sufficiency: the card must contain enough information that a reasonable recipient can determine, or at minimum investigate, whether the engineer is legally authorized to provide engineering services in the recipient's jurisdiction. The antitrust and commercial free speech context recognized in prior BER cases reinforces that this framework should not be applied so restrictively as to prohibit legitimate multi-state practice marketing, but neither should it be applied so permissively as to allow engineers to use the P.E. title in ways that obscure the jurisdictional limits of their licensure." ; proeth:conclusionType "analytical_extension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669303"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_2 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_2" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "1" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "302" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "402" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision5 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 2 ; proeth:conclusionText "Situation 2. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics." ; proeth:conclusionType "board_explicit" ; proeth:extractionReasoning "The Board found that Engineer A's business card in Situation 2, which listed a State E residential address but explicitly identified the states in which Engineer A held licensure, was sufficiently transparent and non-deceptive to comply with the NSPE Code of Ethics, as the explicit licensure disclosure rebutted any false inference of State E licensure." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668338"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_201 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_201" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "101" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "401" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 201 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q101: The omission of a physical mailing address on Engineer A's Situation 1 business card is best characterized not merely as incomplete disclosure but as a material omission that enables deception, and that distinction does change the ethical analysis. A business card distributed in a professional context carries an implicit representation that the holder is available to perform the services suggested by the credentials displayed. When Engineer A lists 'P.E.' without anchoring that credential to any jurisdiction, the card affirmatively invites recipients to infer that licensed engineering services are available in whatever jurisdiction the card is received — here, State E. The absence of a mailing address compounds this problem because it removes the geographic anchor that would otherwise allow a recipient to assess whether Engineer A's licensure is relevant to their needs. The Board's finding of a violation in Situation 1 rests on the combination of both omissions, but the licensure-state omission is the more ethically significant deficiency because it directly implicates the public's ability to assess whether Engineer A is legally authorized to serve them. The address omission is a secondary but reinforcing failure: without a physical address, there is no contextual signal to prompt a recipient to ask which states Engineer A is licensed in. Together, the two omissions create a card that is not merely incomplete but functionally misleading under Code provisions III.3.a and II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669388"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_202 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_202" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "102" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "404" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.8.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 202 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q102: A business card transitions from a passive identification instrument into an active solicitation of engineering services when its content, context of distribution, and the reasonable inferences it generates collectively signal an offer to perform licensed engineering work. The threshold is not purely formal — it depends on what a reasonable recipient in the relevant jurisdiction would understand the card to represent. A card listing 'P.E.' distributed at a business meeting focused on engineering procurement crosses that threshold because the professional context transforms the credential display into an implicit offer of services. By contrast, the same card distributed at a purely social gathering, as in Situation 4, does not cross the threshold because the social context suppresses the inference that an offer of professional services is being made. This distinction has direct bearing on whether distributing a card in an unlicensed jurisdiction violates state registration laws: if the card functions as a solicitation, it implicates Code provision III.8.a's requirement to conform with state registration laws; if it functions as mere identification, it does not. The Board's treatment of Situation 4 implicitly endorses this threshold analysis by finding no violation when Engineer A distributed a State B card during a social visit to State C." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669470"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_203 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_203" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "103" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "403" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 203 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q103: If Engineer A in Situation 3 were to begin performing engineering services in State B — where he holds no license — the existing business card would immediately become ethically deficient, and Engineer A's obligation to update his marketing materials would arise before that transition occurs, not after. The card's current ethical compliance rests entirely on the accuracy of its representation that Engineer A performs only non-engineering consulting in State B. Once that factual predicate changes, the card's notation of State B offices combined with the 'P.E.' title would create a materially misleading impression that licensed engineering services are available from that office. The principle of ongoing marketing material accuracy currency, which the Board recognizes as a general obligation for all engineers, requires proactive updating rather than reactive correction. Engineer A cannot ethically distribute a card that was accurate yesterday if he knows today that it will be inaccurate tomorrow in a material respect. The obligation to update arises at the point of decision to change service scope, not at the point of first distribution of the outdated card." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669587"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_204 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_204" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "104" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "402" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 204 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q104: The Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical does implicitly establish a precedent that explicit licensure disclosure can cure an otherwise misleading geographic representation, but the precedent has important limits. The State E address on Engineer A's Situation 2 card would, standing alone, create a reasonable inference that Engineer A is licensed to practice engineering in State E. The explicit listing of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure rebuts that inference by affirmatively informing the recipient that State E is not among them. The precedent therefore establishes that explicit disclosure of actual licensure jurisdictions is sufficient to offset geographic ambiguity created by an address mismatch — but only when the disclosure is clear, prominent, and unambiguous. The precedent does not establish that any level of explicit disclosure can offset any degree of misleading representation. A card that listed licensure states in fine print while prominently displaying a State E address and 'P.E.' designation would not satisfy the same standard, because the disclosure would not effectively counteract the dominant misleading impression. The ethical sufficiency of explicit disclosure is therefore calibrated to whether a reasonable recipient would actually register and understand the disclosure in the context of the card's overall presentation." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669678"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_205 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_205" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "201" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.8.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 205 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q201: The principle of antitrust and commercial speech tempering of advertising ethics does not provide engineers a blanket right to distribute business cards in unlicensed jurisdictions in defiance of state registration laws. The commercial free speech framework, as reflected in BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2, operates primarily to prevent professional codes from imposing restrictions on truthful, non-deceptive advertising that go beyond what is necessary to protect the public. It does not override state registration laws, which are external legal requirements rather than internal code restrictions. An engineer who distributes a card in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed and where the card could be understood as soliciting engineering services is not engaging in protected commercial speech — they are potentially violating a state law that the NSPE Code itself requires them to obey under provision III.8.a. The antitrust and commercial speech framework therefore narrows the scope of permissible code-based advertising restrictions but does not displace jurisdiction-specific registration compliance obligations." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669774"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_206 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_206" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "202" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 206 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q202: The tension between the improper complaint filing prohibition applied against Engineer D and the general professional duty to report potential violations is real, and the appropriate calibration of epistemic certainty required before filing a complaint must account for both the seriousness of the alleged violation and the reliability of the information on which the complaint is based. The Board's finding that Engineer D acted improperly in Situation 4 rests on two compounding epistemic failures: Engineer D acted on secondhand information from a non-engineer, and the underlying conduct — distributing a State B card during a social visit to State C — did not constitute a violation in the first place. The threshold for filing a complaint should therefore be understood as requiring both a reasonable basis to believe a violation occurred and a reasonable basis to believe the information supporting that belief is reliable. When both conditions are absent, as in Situation 4, the filing of a complaint is not a fulfillment of the reporting duty but an abuse of the reporting mechanism. When both conditions are present — for example, when an engineer personally witnesses another engineer performing unlicensed engineering services — the reporting duty is clearly triggered. The difficult cases lie between these poles, where the alleged violation is serious but the information is secondhand: in those cases, engineers should seek to verify the information before filing, rather than treating the reporting obligation as self-executing upon receipt of any allegation." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669847"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_207 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_207" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "203" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "102" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 207 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q203: There is a genuine tension between the qualification transparency principle — which drove the finding that Situation 1 is unethical — and the principle that a business card in a social or general business context carries a lower duty of comprehensive disclosure than a formal engineering proposal. However, the tension is resolved by the nature of the meeting context rather than by the card's format. In Situation 1, Engineer A distributed the card at a business meeting, not a social gathering. The business meeting context activates the full qualification transparency obligation because recipients are likely evaluating Engineer A as a potential service provider. The lower disclosure duty associated with social contexts applies only when the card is distributed in circumstances where no reasonable recipient would understand it as an offer of professional services — as in Situation 4's social visit. The business card format does not itself determine the disclosure standard; the context of distribution does. This means that the same card could satisfy ethical requirements in one context and fail them in another, which is consistent with the Board's differential treatment of Situations 1 and 4." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.669930"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_208 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_208" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "204" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "304" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 208 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q204: The tension between the non-engineering expert services permissibility principle and the honesty in professional representations principle in Situation 3 is real but is adequately resolved by the explicit licensure notation on the card. The concern is legitimate: a recipient in State B who receives a card listing State B offices and displaying 'P.E.' may reasonably infer that licensed engineering services are available from that office. However, the card's explicit statement that licensure is held only in State C directly contradicts that inference and places the recipient on notice that engineering services, if needed, would be provided under State C licensure. The honesty obligation does not require Engineer A to include a further disclaimer specifying that the State B office provides only non-engineering consulting — the explicit licensure limitation already communicates the material fact that State B is not a licensed engineering jurisdiction for Engineer A. The ethical sufficiency of this disclosure depends on the card being distributed in State C, where recipients are more likely to understand the significance of the State C licensure notation. If the card were distributed in State B, the analysis might differ because State B recipients would be more likely to act on the inference that local engineering services are available." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670016"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_209 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_209" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "301" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "101" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 209 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A in Situation 1 did not fulfill a categorical duty of non-deception. The Kantian analysis does not require that any recipient was actually misled — it requires that the maxim underlying Engineer A's action be universalizable without contradiction. The maxim implicit in distributing a card that lists 'P.E.' without identifying licensure jurisdictions or a mailing address is roughly: 'When presenting professional credentials, omit geographic limitations on those credentials.' If universalized, this maxim would systematically undermine the public's ability to assess whether engineers are legally qualified to serve them, which would contradict the very purpose of professional credentialing. The omission is therefore not merely imprudent but categorically impermissible under a deontological framework, regardless of whether any individual recipient was actually deceived. The duty of non-deception is violated at the point of distribution, not at the point of reliance." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670097"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_210 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_210" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "302" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "104" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 210 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical produces better public-protection outcomes than a stricter rule requiring perfect address-licensure geographic alignment. A strict alignment rule would prohibit engineers from listing a home or primary business address in a state where they are not licensed, even when they explicitly disclose their actual licensure jurisdictions. This would impose significant practical burdens on multi-state practitioners without meaningfully improving public protection, because the explicit licensure disclosure already provides recipients with the information they need to assess Engineer A's qualifications. The consequentialist calculus favors the Board's approach: explicit disclosure of licensure states is the information that actually protects the public, and requiring address-licensure alignment as an additional formal requirement would add compliance costs without proportionate public benefit. However, the consequentialist analysis also supports maintaining a high standard for the clarity and prominence of the explicit disclosure, because a disclosure that recipients are unlikely to notice or understand would not produce the public-protection benefits that justify the Board's permissive approach to address mismatches." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670179"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_211 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_211" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "303" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "202" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 211 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer D's decision to file a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in Situation 4 — based entirely on secondhand information about a card distributed in a social context — does not reflect the professional virtues of prudence, fairness, and epistemic humility that the NSPE Code expects. Prudence would have required Engineer D to assess whether the conduct described actually constituted a violation before filing, and a prudent engineer with knowledge of multi-state licensing rules would have recognized that distributing a State B card during a social visit to State C does not constitute unlicensed practice. Fairness would have required Engineer D to consider whether Engineer A deserved the burden of a licensure board investigation based on a secondhand account of conduct that, even if accurately described, was not a violation. Epistemic humility would have required Engineer D to acknowledge the limits of secondhand information from a non-engineer before treating it as a sufficient basis for a formal complaint. The filing of the complaint reflects instead a disposition toward reflexive enforcement that mistakes procedural action for professional virtue — a failure that the Board implicitly identifies by finding Engineer D's conduct inconsistent with the Code." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670256"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_212 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_212" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "304" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "204" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 212 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, the NSPE Code's duty of honesty in professional representations does not impose a strict obligation on Engineer A in Situation 3 to include an additional clarification on the business card specifying that the State B office is associated only with non-engineering consulting services. The card's explicit notation that licensure is held only in State C is sufficient to discharge the honesty duty when the card is distributed in State C, because it provides the material fact — the geographic scope of licensure — that a recipient needs to avoid being misled about Engineer A's engineering qualifications. A deontological analysis focused on the duty of non-deception asks whether the card's content, taken as a whole, would lead a reasonable recipient to form a false belief about a material fact. The explicit State C licensure notation prevents the formation of a false belief about licensure scope, even if it does not affirmatively explain the nature of the State B office's activities. The duty of honesty requires disclosure of material facts, not exhaustive explanation of every aspect of the engineer's business structure. However, this analysis is sensitive to the distribution context: if the card were distributed in State B, where recipients might more readily assume that local engineering services are available, the existing notation might be insufficient to discharge the honesty duty without additional clarification." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670374"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_213 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_213" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "401" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "101" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "I.5." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 213 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q401: The Board's finding of a violation in Situation 1 rests on the combination of both omissions — the absence of a mailing address and the absence of licensure-state identification — but the licensure-state omission is the primary and independently sufficient basis for the violation. Correcting only the address omission while continuing to omit the states of licensure would not have rendered the card ethical, because the core problem is that recipients cannot assess whether Engineer A is licensed to serve them in their jurisdiction. A card listing a mailing address in State B but still displaying 'P.E.' without identifying States B, C, and D as the licensure jurisdictions would still create a misleading impression that Engineer A is available to perform engineering services in State E. Conversely, correcting only the licensure-state omission — by listing States B, C, and D — while omitting a mailing address would likely have been sufficient to render the card ethical, because the licensure-state disclosure provides the material information needed to prevent deception. This analysis is confirmed by the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical: that card lists a State E address (which could itself be misleading) but is saved by the explicit identification of licensure states. The address omission in Situation 1 is therefore a secondary violation that compounds the primary licensure-state omission rather than independently driving the finding." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670459"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_214 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_214" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "402" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "104" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 214 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q402: If Engineer A in Situation 2 had listed a State E address without explicitly identifying the states of licensure on the card, the Board would almost certainly have reached the same conclusion as in Situation 1 — a finding of violation. This counterfactual confirms that explicit licensure-state disclosure is the single most critical variable distinguishing ethical from unethical multi-state business card practice. The State E address, standing alone, creates the same inferential risk as the absence of a mailing address in Situation 1: it invites recipients to assume that Engineer A is licensed to practice engineering in the jurisdiction associated with the address. Without the explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the actual licensure jurisdictions, there is no information on the card to rebut that inference. The Board's differential treatment of Situations 1 and 2 therefore turns entirely on the presence or absence of explicit licensure-state identification, not on the presence or absence of a mailing address. This confirms that the address is ethically relevant primarily as a geographic anchor that creates or reinforces jurisdictional inferences — and that those inferences must be corrected by explicit licensure disclosure whenever they could mislead recipients about the engineer's legal authority to practice." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670545"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_215 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_215" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "403" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "103" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.8.a." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 215 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q403: If Engineer A in Situation 3 had been performing engineering services out of the State B office while holding only a State C license, the business card's notation of State B offices would have constituted a material misrepresentation of licensure status sufficient to render the card unethical — and the Board's analysis would have shifted fundamentally. The ethical compliance of Situation 3 rests entirely on the factual predicate that Engineer A performs only non-engineering consulting in State B. If that predicate were false, the card would not merely be incomplete — it would affirmatively misrepresent that licensed engineering services are available from a State B office when Engineer A has no legal authority to provide them there. The office-licensure differentiation principle that saves Situation 3 depends on the differentiation being real and maintained in practice, not merely asserted on the card. This analysis also reveals that the card's ethical status in Situation 3 is contingent on ongoing behavioral compliance: the card is ethical only so long as Engineer A actually limits his State B activities to non-engineering consulting. The moment he begins performing engineering services in State B, the card becomes a vehicle for misrepresentation regardless of what it says, because the disclaimer of State C-only licensure would be contradicted by the actual service delivery." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670642"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_216 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_216" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "404" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "202" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 216 ; proeth:conclusionText "In response to Q404: If Engineer D had personally witnessed Engineer A distributing the State B business card in State C — rather than receiving the card secondhand through Friend X — the Board's conclusion about the propriety of Engineer D's complaint would likely have been the same, because the underlying conduct still would not have constituted a violation. The social-visit context independently immunizes the card distribution from ethical scrutiny: a card distributed during a social visit does not constitute a solicitation of engineering services in State C, regardless of how Engineer D learned of it. The firsthand versus secondhand distinction matters for the epistemic reliability of the complaint, but it does not change the substantive analysis of whether the underlying conduct was a violation. Even if Engineer D had personally received the card from Engineer A during the social visit, filing a complaint with the State C licensure board would still have been improper because there was no violation to report. The social context is therefore the primary immunizing factor, and the secondhand information problem is a secondary compounding factor that makes Engineer D's conduct additionally problematic by combining substantive error with epistemic recklessness." ; proeth:conclusionType "question_response" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670755"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_3 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_3" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "1" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "304" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "403" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision5 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 3 ; proeth:conclusionText "Situation 3. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics." ; proeth:conclusionType "board_explicit" ; proeth:extractionReasoning "The Board found that Engineer A's distribution of a business card listing State B offices while licensed only in State C was consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics because Engineer A was providing non-engineering consulting services in State B and the firm employed licensed engineers in State B, satisfying the prerequisite for ethical business development activity." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668463"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_301 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_301" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "203" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "102" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "301" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 301 ; proeth:conclusionText "The most fundamental tension in this case — between Qualification Transparency and the Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument principle — was resolved by the Board through a context-sensitive but asymmetric rule: the social or general business context of card distribution does not reduce the duty of comprehensive disclosure; it merely affects whether distribution itself constitutes an unlicensed practice violation. In Situation 1, the Board found a violation not because Engineer A was actively soliciting engineering work in State E, but because the card's omissions — no mailing address, no licensure jurisdictions — left recipients unable to assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legitimate practice. The card's passive character did not excuse its informational deficiency. This resolution establishes that Qualification Transparency is lexically prior to the Non-Solicitation Instrument principle: a card may be non-soliciting in intent and still be ethically deficient in content. The practical implication is that engineers cannot invoke the informal or social nature of card distribution as a shield against disclosure obligations that attach to the card's content independently of its distribution context." ; proeth:conclusionType "principle_synthesis" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670854"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_302 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_302" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "204" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "304" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "403" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "II.5.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 302 ; proeth:conclusionText "The tension between Honesty in Professional Representations and Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility — most acute in Situation 3 — was resolved by the Board through an office-licensure differentiation principle: an engineer may display the P.E. title on a card that lists an office in an unlicensed jurisdiction, provided the card explicitly identifies the jurisdiction of licensure and the engineer's actual activities in the unlicensed jurisdiction are non-engineering in character. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats explicit licensure-state notation as a sufficient disclosure mechanism to neutralize the inferential risk that recipients might assume engineering services are available from the State B office. This resolution, however, leaves a residual tension unaddressed: the Honesty in Professional Representations principle requires not merely that statements be literally accurate but that the overall impression conveyed be non-deceptive. A recipient in State B who sees a card listing a State B office and a P.E. title may reasonably infer that licensed engineering services are available locally, even if the card's fine print limits licensure to State C. The Board's finding of compliance in Situation 3 therefore implicitly prioritizes the sufficiency of explicit textual disclosure over the obligation to prevent reasonable inferential misunderstanding — a prioritization that is defensible but not self-evidently correct, and one that would collapse immediately if Engineer A were to begin performing engineering services from the State B office without updating the card." ; proeth:conclusionType "principle_synthesis" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.670947"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_303 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_303" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "202" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "303" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "404" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 303 ; proeth:conclusionText "The interaction between the Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition and the Licensure Integrity and Public Protection principle — most directly in tension in Situation 4 — was resolved by the Board through a proportionality and epistemic threshold framework: the duty to report potential violations does not override the obligation to exercise sound professional judgment about the credibility and completeness of the information underlying a complaint. Engineer D received a secondhand account from a non-engineer, concerning a card distributed in a social context, describing conduct that the Board found to be non-violating on its face. The Board's finding that Engineer D's complaint was improper synthesizes three sub-principles: (1) the Social Context Non-Violation principle, which holds that distributing a geographically accurate card in a social setting does not constitute unlicensed practice solicitation; (2) the Secondhand Information Restraint principle, which requires engineers to verify the factual basis of a complaint before filing; and (3) the Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization principle, which prohibits treating ambiguous or innocent conduct as a reportable violation. Critically, this resolution does not eliminate the duty to report genuine violations — it calibrates the epistemic threshold required before that duty activates. The Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics principle further reinforces this calibration by reminding engineers that overly aggressive complaint-filing against competitors' advertising can itself raise ethical and legal concerns. The net effect is that Licensure Integrity and Public Protection remains a paramount value, but it is operationalized through a filter of epistemic humility and proportionality that prevents it from becoming a tool for reflexive or retaliatory reporting." ; proeth:conclusionType "principle_synthesis" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671038"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Conclusion_4 a proeth-cases:EthicalConclusion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Conclusion_4" ; proeth:answersQuestion1 "1" ; proeth:answersQuestion2 "303" ; proeth:answersQuestion3 "404" ; proeth:citedProvision1 "I.5." ; proeth:citedProvision2 "II.5.a." ; proeth:citedProvision3 "III.3." ; proeth:citedProvision4 "III.3.a." ; proeth:citedProvision5 "III.8.a." ; proeth:conclusionNumber 4 ; proeth:conclusionText "Situation 4. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics." ; proeth:conclusionType "board_explicit" ; proeth:extractionReasoning "The Board found that Engineer A's distribution of a State B business card at a social occasion in State C was consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, as the social context of distribution did not constitute improper solicitation or misrepresentation, and Engineer D's filing of a complaint based on secondhand information about this social context distribution was itself improper and did not reflect a genuine ethics violation by Engineer A." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668572"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Cross-Jurisdiction_Practice_Signal_Created a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Event" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671708"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP1" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A distribute a business card bearing the P.E. designation at a business meeting without identifying the states of licensure or a mailing address, or must the card include sufficient jurisdictional information for recipients to assess the engineer's legal authority to practice?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer A distributes a business card at a professional business meeting in State E bearing the P.E. designation but omitting both a physical mailing address and any identification of the states in which licensure is held. The question is whether this combination of omissions renders the card ethically deficient under the NSPE Code's truthfulness and non-deception requirements." ; proeth:option1 "Distribute the business card only after adding explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure, and include a mailing address, so that recipients can assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legal authority to practice." ; proeth:option2 "Distribute the card as currently printed, treating it as a passive personal identification instrument rather than a solicitation, on the theory that a business card does not constitute an offer of engineering services and therefore does not trigger the full licensure-disclosure obligation." ; proeth:option3 "Add a mailing address to the card to provide a geographic anchor for recipients, but omit explicit identification of licensed states on the grounds that the address itself signals the base of practice and recipients can independently verify licensure status if needed." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666647"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP2" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A distribute a business card listing a State E mailing address alongside the P.E. designation, relying on the explicit identification of licensed states (B, C, D) to rebut any geographic inference of State E licensure, or must the card achieve geographic alignment between the address and the states of licensure?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer A distributes a business card that lists a State E mailing address alongside the P.E. designation, but explicitly identifies States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure. The card creates a potential geographic inference that Engineer A is licensed in State E, but the explicit licensure notation rebuts that inference. The question is whether explicit licensure-state disclosure is sufficient to cure the misleading geographic representation created by the address mismatch." ; proeth:option1 "Distribute the card as presented, relying on the explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the jurisdictions of licensure to rebut any inference that State E licensure exists, on the basis that this disclosure provides recipients with the material information needed to assess the geographic scope of Engineer A's legal authority." ; proeth:option2 "Revise the card to list a mailing address in one of the states where licensure is held (B, C, or D) rather than State E, achieving geographic alignment between the address and the licensure jurisdictions and eliminating the need to rely on explicit disclosure to rebut the geographic inference." ; proeth:option3 "Retain the State E address but add a prominent disclaimer on the card face stating that Engineer A is not licensed in State E, going beyond mere identification of licensed states to affirmatively negate the geographic inference for recipients who might not process the licensure-state listing as a sufficient rebuttal." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666727"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP3" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A distribute a business card listing State B offices alongside the P.E. designation while relying solely on the explicit State C-only licensure notation to prevent recipients from inferring that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, or must the card include an additional affirmative clarification that the State B office provides only non-engineering consulting?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer A distributes a business card in State C that lists offices in State B and identifies licensure as held only in State C, while actually performing only non-engineering consulting services from the State B office. The card creates a potential inference that licensed engineering services are available from the State B office, but the explicit State C-only licensure notation and the non-engineering character of State B activities are offered as sufficient disclosure. The question is whether the card's explicit licensure notation adequately discharges the honesty obligation, and what ongoing obligation Engineer A bears to update the card if the scope of State B services changes." ; proeth:option1 "Distribute the card as presented, treating the explicit State C-only licensure notation as sufficient to discharge the honesty obligation and prevent recipients from being misled about the availability of licensed engineering services from the State B office, while maintaining a strict behavioral commitment to non-engineering consulting in State B." ; proeth:option2 "Revise the card to include an affirmative notation that the State B office provides non-engineering consulting services only, eliminating the residual inferential risk that recipients might assume licensed engineering services are available from that office rather than merely mitigating it through the licensure-state disclosure." ; proeth:option3 "Omit the State B office reference from the business card entirely, listing only the State C licensure and contact information, on the grounds that including a State B address alongside the P.E. designation creates an inferential risk that cannot be fully neutralized by textual disclosure alone." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666804"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP4" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer D file a formal complaint with the State C licensure board against Engineer A based on secondhand information from a non-engineer about a business card distributed during a social visit, or must Engineer D first verify the facts and assess whether the conduct actually constitutes a licensure violation before initiating formal proceedings?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer D receives secondhand information from Friend X — a non-engineer — that Engineer A distributed a business card bearing the P.E. designation and listing State B offices during a social visit to State C, where Engineer A holds no license. Engineer D files a complaint with the State C engineering licensure board. The question is whether Engineer D's complaint filing was ethically proper given that the information was secondhand, the distribution occurred in a social context, and the underlying conduct may not constitute a violation." ; proeth:option1 "Refrain from filing a formal complaint and instead independently verify the circumstances of the card distribution — including the nature of the meeting, whether engineering services were solicited, and whether the card's content constitutes a licensure violation under State C law — before deciding whether a complaint is warranted." ; proeth:option2 "File the licensure board complaint as submitted, treating the card's display of the P.E. designation alongside a State B address in a State C context as a facially sufficient basis for a complaint, on the grounds that the reporting obligation is triggered by the appearance of a potential violation and that the board — not Engineer D — should determine whether a violation occurred." ; proeth:option3 "Contact Engineer A directly to inquire about the circumstances of the card distribution and the scope of his State C activities before deciding whether to escalate to a formal licensure board complaint, fulfilling a collegial duty of direct engagement while preserving the option to file if the inquiry reveals an actual violation." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666899"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP5" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A treat the antitrust and commercial free speech framework as authorizing distribution of a PE-designated business card in unlicensed jurisdictions provided the card is truthful and non-deceptive, or must Engineer A independently assess and comply with each state's registration laws governing use of the PE title and solicitation of engineering work regardless of whether the card's content is accurate?" ; proeth:focus "Across all four situations, the board must determine whether the antitrust and commercial free speech framework — which limits professional code restrictions on advertising — conflicts with the jurisdiction-specific state registration law compliance obligation, and how to calibrate the threshold at which distributing a PE-designated business card in an unlicensed jurisdiction transitions from protected commercial speech into impermissible solicitation of unlicensed engineering services." ; proeth:option1 "Treat state registration law compliance as a mandatory floor that the commercial free speech framework does not displace, independently assessing each state's rules governing PE title use and engineering solicitation before distributing cards in that state, and refraining from distribution in business contexts in states where such distribution would violate registration laws." ; proeth:option2 "Treat the antitrust and commercial free speech framework as establishing that a truthful, non-deceptive business card — one that accurately identifies licensure jurisdictions — may be distributed in any state without independent assessment of that state's registration laws, on the grounds that the commercial free speech framework preempts code-based restrictions on truthful advertising." ; proeth:option3 "Distribute PE-designated business cards in professional business contexts only in states where licensure is held, while permitting distribution in social contexts in any state, calibrating the distribution practice to the context-dependent solicitation threshold rather than applying a uniform rule across all distribution scenarios." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Multi-State Practice)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666976"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Distribute_Card_on_Social_Visit a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Card on Social Visit" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Action" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671305"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Card on Social Visit (Action 4) → Card Passed To Third Party (Event 4)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672107"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Distribute_Cross-State_Jurisdiction_Card a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Action" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671245"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Cross-State Jurisdiction Card (Action 3) → Cross-Jurisdiction Practice Signal Created (Event 3)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672072"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Distribute_Fully_Disclosed_PE_Card a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Action" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671196"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Fully Disclosed PE Card (Action 2) → Full Disclosure Card Received (Event 2)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672008"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Distribute_Unlabeled_PE_Business_Card a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Action" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671117"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Distribute Unlabeled PE Business Card (Action 1) → Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed (Event 1)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671972"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:EngineerD-Sit4-Secondhand-Complaint-Restraint a proeth:EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorRegulatoryViolationReportConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "EngineerD-Sit4-Secondhand-Complaint-Restraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D received Engineer A's State B business card secondhand from Friend X and brought the matter to the State C licensing board, despite the distribution having occurred in a social context and not constituting a violation." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer D was constrained to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion — including independent verification of the factual basis — before bringing Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution to the State C engineering licensure board, as the complaint was based on secondhand information about conduct that did not constitute a violation." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional judgment and discretion standards" ; proeth:sourcetext "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:temporalscope "Prior to filing complaint with State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C", "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.665189"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Multi-Jurisdiction_Business_Card_Multi-Situation_Licensure_Clarity_Assessment a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Multi-Situation Licensure Clarity Assessment" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A across all four situations needed the capability to identify and compare the specific licensing board rules of States B, C, D, and E — including recognizing when state rules on solicitation and advertising differ — and to apply the more stringent or more specific requirements of each jurisdiction to evaluate compliance of business card distribution practices." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A licensed in States B, C, and D distributes business cards in State E (Situations 1 and 2), State C (Situation 3), and State C socially (Situation 4)" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Navigation of licensure and advertising rules across States B, C, D, and E in four distinct business card distribution scenarios, with varying compliance outcomes" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (all situations)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state." ; proeth:textreferences "some states have regulations which prohibit engineers or engineering firms from seeking or performing work in a particular state unless the engineer or engineering firm is duly licensed or registered in that state.", "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.", "this Board recognizes that the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.670759"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Multi-Jurisdiction_Business_Card_Presenter a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:attributes "{'license': 'Professional Engineer in multiple states', 'situations_analyzed': ['Situation 1 - no physical address (not acceptable)', 'Situation 2 - physical address in State E with licensure states listed (acceptable)', 'Situation 3 - physical address in State D with licensure states listed (acceptable)', 'Situation 4 - social occasion in State C (acceptable)']}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Engineer A presents business cards in multiple situations across states where licensure status varies: (1) without a physical address, (2) with a physical address in State E and explicit licensure states listed, (3) with a physical address in State D and licensure states listed while attending a meeting in State E, and (4) distributing cards at a social occasion in State C where not licensed." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer D Improper Complaint Filer'}", "{'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'NSPE Board of Ethical Review'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "provider_client" ; proeth:roleclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper", "In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed", "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.638385"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Multi-State_Advertising_State_Registration_Law_Conformance a proeth:StateRegistrationLawConformanceinAdvertisingObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributes business cards across multiple states (B, C, D, E) with varying licensure status; the Board evaluates each situation against both the ethics code and applicable state registration laws." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (all situations)" ; proeth:obligationclass "State Registration Law Conformance in Advertising Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to ensure that business card distribution and any associated business development activities in each state conformed to that state's registration laws and rules of practice, including not soliciting work in states where neither Engineer A nor the firm is duly licensed." ; proeth:sourcetext "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice" ; proeth:temporalscope "Whenever business cards are distributed or business development activities are conducted in any state" ; proeth:textreferences "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice", "this board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.662338"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Advertising_Ethics_Historical_Evolution_Awareness a proeth:AdvertisingEthicsHistoricalEvolutionAwarenessCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Advertising Ethics Historical Evolution Awareness Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 1 needed the capability to apply contemporary advertising ethics standards — grounded in truthfulness and state registration conformance — rather than any outdated prohibitionist framework, recognizing that the two primary considerations are non-deception and state law compliance." ; proeth:casecontext "Contemporary advertising ethics analysis applied to business card distribution in State E" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to ensure the business card met the contemporary truthfulness and non-deception standard by omitting licensure state identification and physical address" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:textreferences "First, a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive.", "This Board believes that contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics.", "opinions about the ethics of professional advertising have changed over time" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.666716"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Antitrust_Advertising_Ethics_Scope_Recognition a proeth:NSPECodeAntitrustConstraintScopeBoundaryRecognitionCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Antitrust Advertising Ethics Scope Recognition" ; proeth:capabilityclass "NSPE Code Antitrust Constraint Scope Boundary Recognition Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 1 needed the capability to recognize that while antitrust constraints temper NSPE ethics guidance on advertising, state registration laws remain fully operative and binding, such that compliance with state registration law requirements for business card content is not displaced by antitrust considerations." ; proeth:casecontext "Business card distributed at State E business meeting without physical address or licensure state identification" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to ensure the business card complied with state registration law requirements (licensure state identification, physical address) despite the antitrust-tempered advertising ethics framework" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations." ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations.", "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.", "the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671035"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Business_Card_Licensure_Clarity a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card Licensure Clarity" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 1 lacked adequate exercise of business card licensure clarity capability, failing to identify states of licensure and omitting a mailing address on a PE-designated card distributed at a business meeting in State E." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 1: Engineer A distributes a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E without licensure states or mailing address." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to list states of licensure (B, C, D) and failure to include a mailing address on the business card distributed in State E — both identified as ethical deficiencies." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:textreferences "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652437"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Business_Card_Offer-to-Work_Boundary_Assessment a proeth:BusinessCardOffer-to-WorkBoundaryDiscriminationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Assessment" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Offer-to-Work Boundary Discrimination Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 1 needed but failed to adequately exercise the capability to recognize that distributing a PE-designated business card without a physical address or licensure state identification — even if not an offer to do work — still creates an appearance of deception about licensure jurisdiction that violates ethics obligations." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributed a business card at a business meeting in State E where he is not licensed, without identifying his states of licensure (B, C, D) or a physical address" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Distribution of a business card at a State E business meeting that omitted physical address and licensure state identification, creating confusion about whether Engineer A was licensed in State E" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E." ; proeth:textreferences "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E.", "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.666218"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Licensure_Jurisdiction_Omission_Business_Card a proeth:Multi-StatePEBusinessCardLicensureJurisdictionIdentificationObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Licensure Jurisdiction Omission Business Card" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 1: Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a PE-designated card that omits the states of licensure entirely." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Multi-State PE Business Card Licensure Jurisdiction Identification Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to identify on his business card the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds licensure when distributing a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E." ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.650700"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Mailing_Address_Omission_Business_Card a proeth:Multi-StatePEBusinessCardMailingAddressInclusionObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Mailing Address Omission Business Card" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 1: Engineer A's business card omits both the states of licensure and any mailing address, compounding the misleading impression of the card." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Multi-State PE Business Card Mailing Address Inclusion Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to include a mailing address on his business card when distributing a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E, so that recipients could identify the geographic base of his practice." ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.650893"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Multi-Jurisdiction_Business_Card_Presenter a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:attributes "{'license_states': ['B', 'C', 'D'], 'card_distribution_state': 'E', 'card_omissions': ['mailing address', 'states of licensure']}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Licensed in States B, C, and D; hands out a business card in State E indicating PE status but omitting mailing address and the states in which licensed, raising concerns about misleading representation of licensure scope." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State E Licensing Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "provider_client" ; proeth:roleclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D", "does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed", "hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.640879"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Multi-Jurisdiction_Licensing_Rule_Knowledge a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Knowledge" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 1 needed capability to identify and apply the licensure disclosure rules of States B, C, D, and E when distributing a PE-designated business card at a business meeting in State E." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 1: Multi-state PE distributing card in State E without required disclosures." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to apply multi-jurisdiction rules requiring identification of licensure states and inclusion of a mailing address when distributing a PE card in a state where not licensed." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.", "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652606"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Physical_Address_Licensure_Anchoring_Failure a proeth:PhysicalAddressLicensureJurisdictionAnchoringCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Licensure Anchoring Failure" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Physical Address Licensure Jurisdiction Anchoring Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 1 lacked or failed to apply the capability to recognize that omitting a physical address from a PE-designated business card distributed in State E creates ambiguity about licensure jurisdiction, constituting an ethical deficiency." ; proeth:casecontext "Business card distributed at State E business meeting lacked physical address, creating jurisdictional ambiguity about where Engineer A holds PE licensure" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to include a physical address on the business card distributed at the State E business meeting, leaving recipients unable to anchor the PE designation to a specific licensure jurisdiction" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is the opinion of this Board that, to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer." ; proeth:textreferences "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable.", "it is the opinion of this Board that, to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.666482"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Physical_Address_Omission_Ethics_Violation a proeth:BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionLicensureClarityObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributes a business card at a business meeting in State E bearing the PE designation but omitting both a physical address and the states of licensure; Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D but not State E." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to include a physical address on the business card distributed at the business meeting in State E, and to identify the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, so that recipients would not be misled about the geographic scope of the PE designation." ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable" ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable", "to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.660522"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Qualifications_Non-Misrepresentation_Business_Card a proeth:QualificationsNon-FalsificationandNon-MisrepresentationObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Business Card" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 1: Engineer A's business card at a State E business meeting displays the PE designation without identifying the licensing states or a mailing address, potentially misleading recipients about the geographic scope of his licensure." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to refrain from presenting a PE-designated business card that omits the states of licensure and mailing address, as such omissions create a misleading impression of the scope of his licensure in a professional business context." ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652299"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_1_Truthful_Advertising_Obligation_Violation a proeth:TruthfulandNon-DeceptiveAdvertisingObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 1 Truthful Advertising Obligation Violation" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's Situation 1 business card bears the PE designation without a physical address or identification of licensing states, distributed at a business meeting in State E where Engineer A is not licensed." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Truthful and Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to ensure the business card distributed at the State E business meeting was truthful and not deceptive regarding licensure status; the omission of a physical address and states of licensure created an unacceptable appearance of deception, violating this obligation." ; proeth:sourcetext "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E" ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E", "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable", "a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.662969"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Business_Card_Licensure_Clarity_Compliance a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card Licensure Clarity Compliance" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 2 demonstrated the capability to present licensure status information with sufficient clarity on a business card distributed in a state where he is not licensed, by correctly identifying the states of licensure and including a physical address." ; proeth:casecontext "Compliant business card distributed at State E business meeting — the ethically acceptable scenario" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Distribution of a business card at a State E business meeting that correctly identified States B, C, and D as licensure states and included a State E mailing address, satisfying all clarity requirements" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed.", "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.667189"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Business_Card_Licensure_Clarity_Compliant a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card Licensure Clarity Compliant" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 2 demonstrated adequate business card licensure clarity capability by correctly identifying states of licensure (B, C, D) and including a mailing address on the PE-designated card distributed in State E." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 2: Engineer A distributes a compliant PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Compliant business card listing states of licensure and mailing address, satisfying both the licensure jurisdiction identification and mailing address inclusion obligations." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:textreferences "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652793"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Compliant_Business_Card_Distribution a proeth:Multi-StatePEBusinessCardLicensureJurisdictionIdentificationObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Business Card Distribution" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 2: Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a PE-designated card that correctly identifies States B, C, and D as his licensing states and includes a mailing address." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Multi-State PE Business Card Licensure Jurisdiction Identification Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to identify on his business card the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds licensure when distributing a PE-designated card at a business meeting in State E — an obligation he satisfied in Situation 2." ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.651063"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Compliant_Mailing_Address_Business_Card a proeth:Multi-StatePEBusinessCardMailingAddressInclusionObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Mailing Address Business Card" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 2: Engineer A's business card includes both the states of licensure and a mailing address in State E, fully satisfying the disclosure obligation." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Multi-State PE Business Card Mailing Address Inclusion Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to include a mailing address on his PE-designated business card distributed at a business meeting in State E — an obligation he satisfied in Situation 2 by listing his State E mailing address." ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.651200"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Compliant_Physical_Address_Licensure_Anchoring a proeth:PhysicalAddressLicensureJurisdictionAnchoringCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Compliant Physical Address Licensure Anchoring" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Physical Address Licensure Jurisdiction Anchoring Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 2 demonstrated the capability to correctly manage the physical address licensure anchoring effect by listing a State E residence address while explicitly identifying the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, thereby avoiding any deceptive implication of State E licensure." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributed a compliant business card at a State E business meeting that identified both the physical address and the states of licensure" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Business card correctly listed State E residence address alongside explicit identification of States B, C, and D as the states of licensure, satisfying the conventional assumption management requirement" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed." ; proeth:textreferences "In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed.", "The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there.", "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.666958"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Licensure_State_Identification_Compliance a proeth:BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionLicensureClarityObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Licensure State Identification Compliance" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributes a business card at a business meeting in State E that identifies residence in State E and lists States B, C, and D as the states of licensure; Engineer A is not licensed in State E." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to include a physical address and to identify the states of licensure on the business card distributed in State E; Engineer A satisfied this obligation by listing a State E address and identifying States B, C, and D as the states of licensure." ; proeth:sourcetext "In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed" ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive", "In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed", "The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.660776"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_2_Multi-Jurisdiction_Business_Card_Presenter a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:attributes "{'license_states': ['B', 'C', 'D'], 'card_distribution_state': 'E', 'card_contents': ['states of licensure listed', 'mailing address in State E'], 'potential_issue': 'Address in unlicensed state may imply licensure there'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Licensed in States B, C, and D; hands out a business card in State E that correctly identifies the states of licensure and lists a mailing address in State E, raising the question of whether listing a State E address implies licensure in State E." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State E Licensing Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "provider_client" ; proeth:roleclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D", "business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D", "lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.641153"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Multi-Jurisdiction_Business_Card_Presenter a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:attributes "{'license_states': ['C'], 'office_state': 'B', 'card_distribution_state': 'C', 'services_in_unlicensed_state': 'non-engineering consulting only'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes card in State C accurately reflecting licensure in State C only, raising questions about the propriety of listing a State B office address while licensed only in State C." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'subject_of_ethics_review', 'target': 'State C Licensing Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "provider_client" ; proeth:roleclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A hands out his business card in State C", "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.641390"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Non-Engineering_Consulting_Accurate_Card_Compliance a proeth:BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionLicensureClarityObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting Accurate Card Compliance" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes a card in State C accurately reflecting this distinction." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Licensure Clarity Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to ensure the business card accurately reflected the distinction between the state of office location (State B) and the state of licensure (State C); Engineer A satisfied this obligation by distributing a card in State C that accurately reflected offices in State B and licensure only in State C." ; proeth:sourcetext "Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice" ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card in State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice", "this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.661018"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Non-Engineering_Scope_Boundary_Maintenance a proeth:Non-EngineeringExpertScopeBoundaryMaintenanceCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Scope Boundary Maintenance" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Non-Engineering Expert Scope Boundary Maintenance Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 3 must maintain the capability to ensure that consulting services performed in State B (where not licensed as a PE) remain strictly within non-engineering scope and do not cross into engineering practice." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 3: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting in State B where not licensed as a PE." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Performance of non-engineering consulting services in State B while holding PE licensure only in State C, requiring ongoing scope boundary vigilance." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.667679"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Non-Engineering_Services_Scope_Maintenance_State_B a proeth:Non-EngineeringExpertServicesScopeMaintenanceObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Services Scope Maintenance State B" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 3: Engineer A performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while licensed only in State C. The business card accurately reflects this distinction, but the obligation to maintain the non-engineering character of State B services is ongoing." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Non-Engineering Expert Services Scope Maintenance Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to ensure that the consulting services he performs in State B — where he is not licensed as a PE — remain strictly non-engineering in character, consistent with the business card's representation that his PE licensure is limited to State C." ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B." ; proeth:temporalscope "Throughout the period of performing consulting services in State B" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.651519"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Office-Licensure_Differentiation a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 3 demonstrated office-licensure differentiation capability by noting on the business card that offices are in State B while licensure is held only in State C, distributed in State C." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 3: Engineer A has offices in State B (unlicensed) and is licensed only in State C; distributes card in State C." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Business card explicitly differentiating State B office location from State C licensure jurisdiction, avoiding misleading implication of licensure in State B." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652980"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Office-Licensure_Differentiation_Business_Card a proeth:Multi-StatePEBusinessCardOffice-LicensureJurisdictionDifferentiationObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Business Card" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 3: Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting in State B but is licensed only in State C. His business card correctly notes offices in State B and licensure in State C only, distributed in State C." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Multi-State PE Business Card Office-Licensure Jurisdiction Differentiation Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to clearly differentiate on his business card that his offices are in State B (where he is not licensed as an engineer) while his PE licensure is held only in State C — an obligation he satisfied in Situation 3." ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of distributing the business card in State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.", "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.651351"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_3_Office-Licensure_Differentiation_Compliance a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureClarityPresentationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Compliance" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Licensure Clarity Presentation Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 3 demonstrated the capability to present licensure status information with sufficient clarity by distributing a card in State C that accurately reflected the distinction between the state of office location (State B) and the state of actual PE licensure (State C), avoiding any deceptive implication of State B licensure." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; distributes card in State C accurately reflecting this distinction" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Business card distributed in State C accurately reflected that offices are in State B while licensure is held in State C, satisfying the office-licensure differentiation requirement" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice." ; proeth:textreferences "By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice.", "this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.667445"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_4_Business_Card_Dual-Purpose_Function_Recognition a proeth:BusinessCardDual-PurposePersonal-ProfessionalFunctionRecognitionCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 4 Business Card Dual-Purpose Function Recognition" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Business Card Dual-Purpose Personal-Professional Function Recognition Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 4 implicitly demonstrated the capability to recognize that a business card distributed in a social context serves a personal identification function rather than a business solicitation function, making the distribution ethically permissible." ; proeth:casecontext "Social visit to State C where Engineer A distributes his State B card to a non-engineer friend" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Distribution of a business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit, consistent with the personal calling-card function of business cards rather than the business solicitation function" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "From a personal perspective, business cards serve the function of what were formerly known as calling cards, this purpose being to provide basic identification and contact information." ; proeth:textreferences "Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper", "From a personal perspective, business cards serve the function of what were formerly known as calling cards, this purpose being to provide basic identification and contact information.", "business cards today represent a customary and accepted means by which engineers introduce themselves in contexts both business and social." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.668203"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_4_Multi-Jurisdiction_Business_Card_Presenter a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionBusinessCardPresentingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:attributes "{'license_states': ['B'], 'card_distribution_state': 'C', 'card_contents': ['State B information only'], 'context': 'social visit, non-business purpose', 'recipient': 'non-engineer friend'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Licensed only in State B; on a social (non-business) visit to State C, provides his State B business card to a non-engineer friend. The card is subsequently shared with Engineer D who reports Engineer A to the State C licensing board, raising the question of whether a social card exchange in an unlicensed state constitutes a violation." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'card_recipient', 'target': 'Friend X'}", "{'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "provider_client" ; proeth:roleclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenting Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information", "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.641600"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_4_Social_Context_Card_Distribution_No_Violation a proeth:SocialContextPEBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution No Violation" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A, licensed only in State B, provides his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social (non-business) visit to State C." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (Situation 4)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A had no ethics obligation violated by distributing a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C, as the social context and non-engineer recipient preclude any deceptive representation of licensure." ; proeth:sourcetext "as to Situation 4, the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code" ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of the social visit to State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C", "as to Situation 4, the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.661270"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_4_Social_Context_Distribution_Ethics_Recognition a proeth:SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Distribution Ethics Recognition" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 4 correctly exercised the capability to recognize that distributing a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute a professional solicitation or ethics violation." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A, licensed only in State B, distributes his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social (non-business) visit to State C, which the BER found to be entirely proper and not an ethics violation" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code. Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C." ; proeth:textreferences "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code. Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.667947"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_4_Social_Context_Non-Violation_Recognition a proeth:SocialContextPEBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer A is licensed only in State B. On a social (non-business) visit to State C, he gives his State B business card to a non-engineer friend. The card is accurate for State B. No professional transaction or business solicitation is involved." ; proeth:compliancestatus "met" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ; proeth:obligationclass "Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A's distribution of his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute an ethics violation, and Engineer A bears no obligation to refrain from such distribution in a purely social context where the card accurately reflects his State B licensure." ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of the social visit to State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.651691"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_Situation_4_Social_Context_Non-Violation_Self-Assessment a proeth:SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Self-Assessment" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer A in Situation 4 needed capability to recognize that distributing a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C does not constitute an ethics violation, as it is not a professional solicitation." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer A provides his State B business card to non-engineer Friend X during a social visit to State C." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Distribution of a State B-specific, substantively accurate business card to a non-engineer acquaintance in a social (non-business) context in State C." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer A (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.653124"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_attending_business_meeting_in_State_E_Situation_1_during_Engineer_A_handing_out_business_card_without_physical_address_Situation_1 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 1) during Engineer A handing out business card without physical address (Situation 1)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672657"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_attending_business_meeting_in_State_E_Situation_2_during_Engineer_A_handing_out_business_card_listing_licensed_states_and_State_E_address_Situation_2 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A attending business meeting in State E (Situation 2) during Engineer A handing out business card listing licensed states and State E address (Situation 2)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672725"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_A_handing_out_business_card_during_social_visit_to_State_C_before_Friend_X_sharing_the_card_with_Engineer_D a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A handing out business card during social visit to State C before Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672410"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_As_social_visit_to_State_C_during_Engineer_A_providing_business_card_to_Friend_X a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer A's social visit to State C during Engineer A providing business card to Friend X" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672605"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Improper_Complaint_Filing_Against_Situation_4_Conduct a proeth:ImproperComplaintFilingProhibitionAgainstEngineerforTechnicallyCompliantConduct, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Against Situation 4 Conduct" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer", "Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter" ; proeth:balancingwith "Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation", "Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer D brought Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution in State C to the State C licensure board, despite the conduct being entirely proper; the Board notes this reflects a lack of appropriate judgment and discretion" ; proeth:confidence "0.89" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "Filing a licensure board complaint against conduct that does not rise to the level of an ethics violation constitutes an improper use of the professional regulatory system and itself reflects a failure of professional judgment" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct" ; proeth:sourcetext "it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves the tension between the obligation to report genuine misconduct and the prohibition on baseless complaints by finding that Engineer D's complaint lacked the threshold predicate of actual misconduct" ; proeth:textreferences "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.660007"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Improper_Complaint_Filing_Judgment_Failure a proeth:SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D received secondhand information (via Friend X) about Engineer A distributing a business card in State C while licensed only in State B, and brought the matter to the State C licensure board despite the conduct being entirely proper under the NSPE Code." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer D" ; proeth:obligationclass "Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer D was obligated to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion before bringing Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution to the State C engineering licensure board, including assessing whether the conduct actually constituted a violation; Engineer D failed this obligation by filing a complaint based on a technically compliant social-context card exchange." ; proeth:sourcetext "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of filing the licensure board complaint" ; proeth:textreferences "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.661519"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Improper_Licensure_Complaint_Filer a proeth:ImproperLicensureComplaintFilingEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer" ; proeth:attributes "{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'jurisdiction': 'State C', 'action': 'Filed complaint with State C engineering licensure board'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Engineer D received Engineer A's business card at a social occasion in State C and brought the matter to the State C engineering licensure board, despite Engineer A's conduct being entirely proper. The BER criticized Engineer D for failing to exercise appropriate judgment and discretion." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'complainant_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}", "{'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "public_responsibility" ; proeth:roleclass "Improper Licensure Complaint Filing Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C", "it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.638611"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Jurisdiction-Specific_Misconduct_Reporter a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReporterEngineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter" ; proeth:attributes "{'action_taken': 'reported Engineer A to State C licensing board', 'information_source': 'secondhand via Friend X', 'reporting_jurisdiction': 'State C'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Licensed engineer who receives secondhand information (via Friend X) about Engineer A distributing a business card in State C while licensed only in State B, and reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board. The ethical question concerns whether Engineer D had sufficient basis to report and whether the social context of the card exchange affects the reporting obligation." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'information_received_from', 'target': 'Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient'}", "{'type': 'reported_against', 'target': 'Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}", "{'type': 'reported_to', 'target': 'State C Engineering Licensure Board'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "public_responsibility" ; proeth:roleclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D", "telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.642123"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Improper_Complaint_Filing_Prohibition a proeth:SocialContextPEBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationRecognitionObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D files a State C licensure board complaint against Engineer A for distributing a State B card to a non-engineer friend socially in State C — conduct that does not constitute a professional ethics violation under the applicable principles." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer D" ; proeth:obligationclass "Social Context PE Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Recognition Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer D was obligated to recognize that Engineer A's distribution of a technically accurate, State B-specific business card to a non-engineer friend in a social context in State C does not constitute a reportable ethics violation, and therefore to refrain from filing a licensure board complaint on that basis." ; proeth:sourcetext "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of deciding whether to file the licensure board complaint" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652012"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Jurisdiction-Specific_Misconduct_Threshold_Assessment a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Threshold Assessment" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D applies a complaint to the State C board without demonstrating that State C's specific rules are violated by social-context card distribution of a State B card to a non-engineer." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.86" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer D" ; proeth:obligationclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer D was obligated to evaluate Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct against State C's specific licensure rules — including whether social-context card distribution to a non-engineer constitutes a violation under State C statutes — before concluding that a reportable violation occurred." ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:temporalscope "Before filing the complaint with the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.652156"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Jurisdiction-Specific_Threshold_Assessment a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThresholdComplianceCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Assessment" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Compliance Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D needed capability to identify and apply State C's specific misconduct reporting threshold — including whether social-context card distribution to a non-engineer meets the 'knowledge or reason to believe' standard — before filing a complaint with the State C licensure board." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D must apply State C's specific reporting threshold to Engineer A's social-context card distribution before filing a complaint." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to assess whether Engineer A's conduct met State C's jurisdiction-specific reporting threshold before filing a formal complaint, resulting in an improper complaint filing." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.653768"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Multi-Jurisdiction_Licensing_Rule_Assessment a proeth:Multi-JurisdictionLicensingRuleIdentificationandComparisonCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Assessment" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Multi-Jurisdiction Licensing Rule Identification and Comparison Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D needed capability to identify and compare State B's and State C's specific licensing rules to assess whether Engineer A's State B business card, distributed socially in State C, violated State C's engineering licensure requirements." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D must compare State B and State C licensing rules to assess whether Engineer A's social-context card distribution violated State C rules." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to correctly compare State B and State C licensing rules before concluding that Engineer A's conduct constituted a reportable violation in State C." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.", "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.653906"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Secondhand_Information_Complaint_Filing_Restraint a proeth:SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D receives secondhand information from Friend X that Engineer A distributed a State B business card during a social visit to State C. Without direct verification or assessment of whether the social-context distribution constitutes a violation, Engineer D files a complaint with the State C licensing board." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:57:17.572153+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer D" ; proeth:obligationclass "Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer D was obligated to exercise heightened restraint before filing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on secondhand information relayed by a non-engineer (Friend X), including verifying the facts directly and assessing whether the social-context card distribution actually constituted a violation of State C's licensure rules." ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:temporalscope "Before filing the complaint with the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.651869"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Secondhand_Information_Complaint_Filing_Restraint_Failure a proeth:SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Failure" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D failed to exercise the capability to restrain complaint filing based on secondhand information, bringing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on information received through Friend X (a non-engineer) about a social-context business card distribution that did not constitute an ethics violation." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D received Engineer A's business card through Friend X and brought the matter to the State C licensure board without adequate basis" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Filing of a complaint with the State C engineering licensure board based on secondhand information from a non-engineer friend about Engineer A's social-occasion business card distribution, which the BER found to reflect a failure of appropriate judgment and discretion" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D received Engineer A's business card at a social occasion in State C and brought the matter to the State C engineering licensure board", "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.668584"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Secondhand_Information_Restraint a proeth:SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Restraint" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D lacked adequate secondhand information complaint filing restraint capability, filing a licensure board complaint based solely on information relayed by a non-engineer third party (Friend X) without direct knowledge or verification of the alleged conduct." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D acts on secondhand information from non-engineer Friend X to file a complaint against Engineer A." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Filing a State C licensure board complaint against Engineer A based entirely on Friend X's secondhand account of a social card distribution, without direct observation or independent verification." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.653625"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Social_Context_Ethics_Discrimination_Failure a proeth:SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Social Context Ethics Discrimination Failure" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D failed to exercise the capability to correctly distinguish between business-context and social-context business card distribution, incorrectly treating Engineer A's social-occasion card distribution as a potential ethics violation warranting a licensure board complaint." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D evaluated Engineer A's social-context card distribution as a potential ethics violation and filed a complaint with the State C licensure board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Failure to recognize that Engineer A's distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C did not constitute a professional solicitation or ethics violation, leading to an improper complaint filing" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code." ; proeth:textreferences "it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board.", "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.669056"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_D_Situation_4_Social_Context_Non-Violation_Recognition a proeth:SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionEthicsDiscriminationCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer D Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Social Context Business Card Distribution Ethics Discrimination Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D lacked adequate capability to recognize that Engineer A's social-context distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend in State C does not constitute an ethics violation warranting a licensure board complaint." ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 4: Engineer D receives secondhand information and files a complaint against Engineer A with the State C licensure board." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Filing a complaint with the State C engineering licensure board based on a social-context card distribution that did not constitute a professional solicitation or ethics violation." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.653266"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineer_Reporting_Obligation_to_Licensing_Board_Standard_Instance a proeth:EngineerReportingObligationtoLicensingBoardStandard, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer_Reporting_Obligation_to_Licensing_Board_Standard_Instance" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:createdby "State licensing boards and professional engineering ethics bodies" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:documenttitle "Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Engineer Reporting Obligation to Licensing Board Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C" ; proeth:usedby "Engineer D in Situation 4" ; proeth:usedincontext "Governs Situation 4: whether Engineer D had an obligation or right to report Engineer A to the State C licensing board based on second-hand knowledge of a business card distributed during a social visit, and whether such a report was ethically appropriate given the indirect and social nature of the card's distribution" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.639775"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineering_Advertising_Antitrust_Legal_Framework a proeth:FreeandOpenCompetitionLegalFrameworkActiveState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineering Advertising Antitrust Legal Framework" ; proeth:activeperiod "Ongoing since the legal challenges of the 1960s and 1970s established commercial free speech and antitrust constraints on professional advertising codes" ; proeth:affectedparties "All engineers evaluating advertising conduct", "NSPE Board of Ethical Review", "Professional engineering societies" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:sourcetext "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations" ; proeth:stateclass "Free and Open Competition Legal Framework Active State" ; proeth:subject "The governing legal environment for engineering advertising ethics analysis, shaped by 1960s-1970s legal challenges to professional code restrictions" ; proeth:terminatedby "Change in governing legal doctrine (not anticipated)" ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations", "BER case numbers 79-6, 82-1, and 84-2 incorporate this perspective", "contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s establishing commercial free speech and antitrust doctrine applicable to engineering advertising" ; proeth:urgencylevel "low" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.648242"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineering_Firm_Employing_Licensed_State_Engineers a proeth:EmployerRelationshipRole, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers" ; proeth:attributes "{'licensure': 'Must be duly licensed in states where business development occurs', 'obligation': 'Ensure firm-level compliance with state registration laws'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "The engineering firm that employs the business development representative and must hold valid licensure in any state where its representative conducts business development activities. The firm's licensure status is the ethical linchpin for the permissibility of the representative's marketing conduct." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.8" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:18.140411+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Business Development Representative Business Development Marketing Engineer'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "employer_relationship" ; proeth:roleclass "Employer Relationship Role" ; proeth:sourcetext "provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state and who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there" ; proeth:textreferences "it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state", "provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state and who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.647069"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineering_Firm_Marketing_Material_Accuracy_Currency_Maintenance a proeth:MarketingMaterialAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineering Firm Marketing Material Accuracy Currency Maintenance" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Marketing Material Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineering firms and their licensed engineers must possess the capability to actively maintain and update all public-facing marketing materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure ongoing accuracy, truthfulness, and non-deception regarding qualifications and licensure status, leveraging reduced digital-age update costs to keep materials current." ; proeth:casecontext "General obligation applicable to all engineers and engineering firms marketing services to clients and the public" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Ongoing review and updating of business cards, brochures, and websites to reflect current licensure status, qualifications, and contact information across all jurisdictions where services are marketed" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:08:10.647406+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineering Firm and Licensed Engineers" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "intermediate" ; proeth:sourcetext "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible.", "In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced.", "These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications.", "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.669966"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineering_Licensure_Law_Multi_State a proeth:EngineeringLicensureLaw, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineering_Licensure_Law_Multi_State" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:createdby "State legislatures of States B, C, D, and E" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:documenttitle "State Engineering Licensure Statutes (States B, C, D, E)" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Engineering Licensure Law" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State C only", "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D", "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:usedby "Engineer A (multi-state licensure); Engineer D (reporting to State C board); State C licensing board" ; proeth:usedincontext "Establishes the legal framework defining what constitutes licensed practice in each state, the jurisdictional scope of licensure, and the authority of state licensing boards to receive and act on reports of potential violations" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.639240"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Engineers_and_Firms_Marketing_Material_Currency_Maintenance_Ongoing_Obligation a proeth:MarketingMaterialOngoingAccuracyandCurrencyMaintenanceObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineers and Firms Marketing Material Currency Maintenance Ongoing Obligation" ; proeth:casecontext "The Board closes its opinion by affirming a general ongoing obligation for all engineers and firms to keep marketing materials current and accurate, noting that electronic tools have reduced the burden of doing so." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:04:35.546107+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineers and Engineering Firms (general)" ; proeth:obligationclass "Marketing Material Ongoing Accuracy and Currency Maintenance Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineers and engineering firms are obligated to continuously maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — including business cards, brochures, and websites — to ensure they remain accurate, truthful, and not deceptive about qualifications and licensure status." ; proeth:sourcetext "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:temporalscope "Ongoing; triggered whenever qualifications, licensure status, or personnel change" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible", "In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced", "These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications", "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.662060"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Ethics_Code_Spirit_and_Letter_Obligation_in_Advertising_Context a proeth:EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Ethics Code Spirit and Letter Obligation in Advertising Context" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter", "Engineering advertising practices generally" ; proeth:balancingwith "Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board affirms that engineers' obligations in advertising and business card use extend beyond mere legal compliance to encompass the spirit of the Code and the dignity and integrity of the profession" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Conforming to state registration laws is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical advertising; engineers must also satisfy the spirit of the ethics code, meaning they must avoid impressions that are technically lawful but professionally misleading" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum" ; proeth:sourcetext "the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The higher standard operates in the space between legal compliance and full ethical compliance, requiring engineers to ask not only 'is this lawful?' but 'does this uphold the dignity and integrity of the profession?'" ; proeth:textreferences "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice", "the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.657945"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:First_Amendment_Commercial_Free_Speech_Antitrust_Legal_Challenges a proeth:FirstAmendmentProfessionalCodeConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "First_Amendment_Commercial_Free_Speech_Antitrust_Legal_Challenges" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:createdby "U.S. Courts / Department of Justice" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "Legal Challenges to Professional Society Codes of Ethics (1960s–1970s)" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "First Amendment Professional Code Constraint" ; proeth:sourcetext "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations." ; proeth:textreferences "As a result of legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics during the 1960s and 1970s, the examination of ethical issues relating to advertising are now tempered with strong cautions relating to commercial free speech and antitrust considerations." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Cited as the legal backdrop that reshaped engineering advertising ethics, introducing commercial free speech and antitrust cautions that now temper ethical analysis of advertising" ; proeth:version "1960s–1970s era rulings" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.645359"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Friend_X_Social_Context_Business_Card_Recipient a proeth:SocialContextBusinessCardRecipientNon-Engineer, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient" ; proeth:attributes "{'engineer_status': False, 'context_of_receipt': 'social visit', 'action_taken': 'shared card with Engineer D'}" ; proeth:caseinvolvement "Non-engineer who receives Engineer A's business card during a social visit in State C and subsequently shares it with Engineer D, indirectly triggering a licensing board complaint against Engineer A." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Role" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:49.104644+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:relationships "{'type': 'card_received_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter'}", "{'type': 'card_shared_with', 'target': 'Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter'}" ; proeth:rolecategory "participant" ; proeth:roleclass "Social Context Business Card Recipient Non-Engineer" ; proeth:sourcetext "non-engineer Friend X" ; proeth:textreferences "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D", "non-engineer Friend X", "telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.641862"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Friend_X_sharing_the_card_with_Engineer_D_before_Engineer_D_reporting_Engineer_A_to_the_State_C_engineering_licensure_board a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Friend X sharing the card with Engineer D before Engineer D reporting Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672561"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Full_Disclosure_Card_Received a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Full Disclosure Card Received" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Event" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671642"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Honesty_in_Professional_Representations_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Business_Card_Content a proeth:HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer A Business Card Content" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card content accuracy across all four situations" ; proeth:balancingwith "Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use", "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's business card content across all four situations is evaluated for whether it makes truthful and accurate representations of licensure status; Situations 2 and 3 are compliant, Situation 1 is potentially misleading by omission, and Situation 4 is accurate for State B." ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Honesty in professional representations requires not only the absence of false statements but also the absence of misleading omissions — a PE designation without state-of-licensure identification in a business context may be technically true but misleading." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Honesty in Professional Representations" ; proeth:sourcetext "does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:tensionresolution "In business contexts, honesty requires affirmative disclosure of licensure jurisdiction; in social contexts with non-engineers, the accuracy of the card's content for the state of licensure satisfies the honesty requirement." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.650386"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "I.5." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666437"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "II.5.a." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666473"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "III.3." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666506"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "III.3.a." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666536"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "III.8.a." ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.666567"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Improper_Complaint_Filing_Prohibition_Invoked_Against_Engineer_D a proeth:ImproperComplaintFilingProhibitionAgainstEngineerforTechnicallyCompliantConduct, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer D" ; proeth:appliedto "Licensure board complaint filed in State C against Engineer A" ; proeth:balancingwith "Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation", "Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer D files a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in State C based on a social-context business card exchange with a non-engineer friend, conduct that does not constitute an ethics violation — making Engineer D's complaint itself an improper use of the regulatory system." ; proeth:confidence "0.83" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Because Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct does not violate applicable ethics rules, Engineer D's complaint is not grounded in a legitimate ethics concern; filing such a complaint may itself constitute an ethics violation by Engineer D." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer" ; proeth:principleclass "Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The mandatory reporting obligation applies only when there is actual knowledge or reasonable belief of a violation; because Situation 4 conduct is permissible, the reporting obligation is not triggered and the complaint is improper." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.649574"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Improper_Licensure_Complaint_Filer_Engineer_D_Restraint a proeth:SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintCapability, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Improper Licensure Complaint Filer Engineer D Restraint" ; proeth:capabilityclass "Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Capability" ; proeth:capabilitystatement "Engineer D as an improper licensure complaint filer lacked the secondhand information restraint capability needed to refrain from filing a State C licensure board complaint based solely on Friend X's indirect account of Engineer A's social-context card distribution." ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D files an improper complaint with the State C licensure board based on secondhand information from Friend X." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Capability" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:demonstratedthrough "Filing a formal licensure board complaint against Engineer A based entirely on secondhand information from a non-engineer third party, without direct knowledge or independent verification of the alleged conduct." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:30.940402+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:possessedby "Engineer D Improper Licensure Complaint Filer" ; proeth:proficiencylevel "basic" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.654388"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Jurisdiction-Specific_Ethics_Compliance_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Multi-State_Card_Distribution a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificEthicsComplianceObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Invoked By Engineer A Multi-State Card Distribution" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card distribution across multiple states with varying licensure status" ; proeth:balancingwith "Practical business card design constraints", "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's distribution of business cards across States B, C, D, and E requires compliance with the specific licensure and title-use rules of each jurisdiction; the analysis of each situation turns on the specific rules of the state where the card is presented and whether the card's content satisfies those rules." ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Multi-state practice requires engineers to calibrate business card content to the most demanding applicable standard and to ensure compliance with each jurisdiction's specific rules about PE title use and licensure disclosure." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The jurisdiction-specific compliance obligation is satisfied by including states of licensure on cards used in professional contexts; social-context distributions to non-engineers may fall outside the rule's scope." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information. On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X.", "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D. Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.649917"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Jurisdiction-Specific_Misconduct_Reporting_Threshold_Invoked_By_Engineer_D a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificMisconductReportingThreshold, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold Invoked By Engineer D" ; proeth:appliedto "Assessment of whether Situation 4 conduct violates State C engineering licensure rules" ; proeth:balancingwith "Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition Against Engineer for Technically Compliant Conduct" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer D must apply State C's specific licensure rules to determine whether Engineer A's conduct in Situation 4 constitutes a violation reportable to the State C board; the analysis requires examining whether State C's rules extend to social-context card distribution to non-engineers by engineers licensed in another state." ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The reporting threshold is jurisdiction-specific: Engineer D must assess whether State C's rules actually prohibit the conduct before filing a complaint; a national or general standard is insufficient." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter" ; proeth:principleclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporting Threshold" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:tensionresolution "Applying State C's specific rules to the social-context facts of Situation 4 likely reveals no violation, making the complaint improper under the jurisdiction-specific threshold principle." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.650066"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Licensure_Board_Report_Filed a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Licensure Board Report Filed" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Event" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671856"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Licensure_Integrity_and_Public_Protection_Invoked_Across_All_Situations a proeth:LicensureIntegrityandPublicProtectionPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Invoked Across All Situations" ; proeth:appliedto "All four business card distribution situations" ; proeth:balancingwith "Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization", "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The underlying concern in all four situations is whether Engineer A's business card practices erode the integrity of the licensure system by implying engineering authority in jurisdictions where the engineer is not licensed — the principle provides the normative foundation for evaluating each situation." ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The licensure system's public protection function requires that PE designations on business cards not mislead recipients about the geographic scope of licensure; however, the principle must be applied proportionately and contextually, not mechanically." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The public protection rationale supports disclosure requirements in professional contexts (Situations 1, 2, 3) but does not extend to social-context distributions to non-engineers (Situation 4) where no professional reliance occurs." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D. Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.650218"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Licensure_Status_Ambiguity_Revealed a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Licensure Status Ambiguity Revealed" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Event" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671524"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a proeth:MarketingMaterialQualificationAccuracyObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Marketing Communication Currency Obligation — Ongoing Maintenance" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter", "Engineering Firm Employing Licensed State Engineers" ; proeth:balancingwith "Firm-Level Title Audit and Corrective Disclosure Obligation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board affirms that engineers and firms must maintain and update all marketing and communication materials — business cards, brochures, websites — to ensure ongoing accuracy about qualifications and licensure, noting that reduced electronic update costs remove the burden excuse" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "The accuracy obligation is not a one-time compliance check but a continuing duty that requires active monitoring and updating as circumstances change; the ease of electronic updates heightens the expectation of currency" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Marketing Material Qualification Accuracy Obligation" ; proeth:sourcetext "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:tensionresolution "No significant tension — the principle reinforces the firm's affirmative duty to maintain accurate public-facing information" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible.", "In today's electronic world, the time and cost associated with updating this material is markedly reduced.", "These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications.", "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.660244"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Advertising a proeth:ProfessionalCode, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Advertising" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.98" ; proeth:createdby "National Society of Professional Engineers" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Professional Code" ; proeth:sourcetext "This Board believes that contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics." ; proeth:textreferences "This Board believes that contemporary questions about the ethics of advertising can be addressed relative to two primary considerations identified in the NSPE Code of Ethics.", "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.", "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Primary normative authority for evaluating the ethics of engineer advertising, business card use, and licensure representation; specifically invoked for truthfulness and non-deception principles" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.644121"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Business_Card a proeth:ProfessionalCode, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Business_Card" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:createdby "National Society of Professional Engineers" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Professional Code" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:usedby "Engineer A in all four situations; Engineer D in Situation 4" ; proeth:usedincontext "Provides the foundational ethical obligations governing honest representation of licensure status on business cards and professional materials, including prohibitions on misleading or deceptive statements about qualifications" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.638799"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Non-Engineering_Expert_Services_Permissibility_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Situation_3 a proeth:Non-EngineeringExpertServicesPermissibilityinUnlicensedJurisdiction, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility Invoked By Engineer A Situation 3" ; proeth:appliedto "Non-engineering consulting services performed in State B by engineer licensed only in State C" ; proeth:balancingwith "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation", "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while licensed only in State C; the business card accurately reflects this arrangement by noting offices in State B and licensure in State C only, distributed in State C." ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "An engineer may perform non-engineering consulting in a state where not licensed, provided the card accurately represents the scope of licensure and does not imply engineering practice authority in the unlicensed state." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility in Unlicensed Jurisdiction" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B. Engineer A hands out his business card in State C." ; proeth:tensionresolution "Because the card accurately discloses the licensing limitation (licensed in State C only) and the card is distributed in State C (where licensure is held), the arrangement is compliant; the non-engineering nature of State B services removes the licensure concern." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only. Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B. Engineer A hands out his business card in State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.649048"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Ongoing_Marketing_Material_Accuracy_Obligation_State a proeth:RegulatoryComplianceState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Ongoing Marketing Material Accuracy Obligation State" ; proeth:activeperiod "Continuous — persists as long as any marketing materials are in circulation" ; proeth:affectedparties "All engineers", "Clients and public receiving marketing materials", "Engineering firms" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:sourcetext "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:stateclass "Regulatory Compliance State" ; proeth:subject "Engineers' and firms' ongoing obligation to maintain accurate, truthful, and current marketing materials including business cards, brochures, and websites" ; proeth:terminatedby "Cessation of all marketing activity (not a realistic termination condition for active practitioners)" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineers and their firms should strive to keep this information as accurate and current as possible", "These items should be maintained and updated as necessary in order to avoid public misunderstanding about their, or their firm's qualifications", "engineers and engineering companies have an obligation to make sure that the information they use to market and communicate services to their clients and to the public (e.g., business cards, brochures, Web sites, etc.) are accurate, truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer or firm maintains any public-facing marketing or communication materials" ; proeth:urgencylevel "low" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.648685"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:PE_Title_Omission_of_Licensure_Jurisdiction_Disclosure_Obligation_Invoked_Situation_1 a proeth:PETitleOmissionofLicensureJurisdictionDisclosureObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation Invoked Situation 1" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card used at business meeting in State E" ; proeth:balancingwith "Practical business card design constraints" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A presents a PE-designated business card at a business meeting in State E without identifying the states (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, potentially implying licensure in State E where none exists." ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The omission of state-of-licensure identification on a PE-designated card used in a business context in an unlicensed state creates a misleading impression that the engineer is licensed in the jurisdiction of presentation." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation" ; proeth:sourcetext "does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The obligation to disclose states of licensure outweighs practical convenience; Situation 2 demonstrates that compliance is achievable." ; proeth:textreferences "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.638232"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Proportionality_in_Misconduct_Characterization_Invoked_in_Situation_4_Complaint a proeth:ProportionalityinMisconductCharacterization, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization Invoked in Situation 4 Complaint" ; proeth:appliedto "Assessment of whether Engineer A's Situation 4 conduct constitutes reportable misconduct" ; proeth:balancingwith "Mandatory Competitor Misconduct Reporting Obligation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer D's complaint against Engineer A for distributing a State B business card to a non-engineer friend in a social context fails the proportionality test: the conduct does not rise to the level of misrepresentation because no professional solicitation occurred and the card was accurate for the state of licensure." ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Proportionality analysis requires distinguishing between conduct that could have been clearer and conduct that affirmatively misleads; Situation 4 involves neither professional solicitation nor a misleading impression to a professional audience." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer D Jurisdiction-Specific Misconduct Reporter" ; proeth:principleclass "Proportionality in Misconduct Characterization" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The proportionality principle limits the reporting obligation: only conduct that actually meets the threshold for misconduct triggers the duty to report; ambiguous or clearly permissible conduct does not." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.649743"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Qualification_Representation_Standard_Instance a proeth:QualificationRepresentationStandard, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Qualification_Representation_Standard_Instance" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:createdby "Professional engineering ethics bodies" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:documenttitle "Qualification Representation Standard" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:resourceclass "Qualification Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only", "business card indicating that he is a P.E. ... does not identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:usedby "Engineer A in all four situations" ; proeth:usedincontext "Provides normative grounding for evaluating whether Engineer A's business card representations — particularly the omission of state licensure identifiers or the listing of an address in an unlicensed state — constitute misrepresentation of professional qualifications" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.640023"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Qualification_Transparency_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Situation_1_Business_Card a proeth:QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Qualification Transparency Invoked By Engineer A Situation 1 Business Card" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card presented at business meeting in State E" ; proeth:balancingwith "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's Situation 1 business card uses the PE designation without identifying the states of licensure or providing a mailing address, creating a potentially misleading impression that Engineer A is licensed to practice in State E where the card is presented at a business meeting." ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "In this context, the principle requires that PE designation on a business card used in a professional/business context be accompanied by sufficient information (states of licensure, mailing address) to prevent recipients from being misled about the geographic scope of licensure." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:tensionresolution "Because this is a business meeting context (not social), the qualification transparency obligation applies fully; the absence of licensure state identification and mailing address falls short of the transparency standard." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E. The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.638069"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Qualification_Transparency_Satisfied_By_Engineer_A_Situation_2_Business_Card a proeth:QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 2 Business Card" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card presented at business meeting in State E" ; proeth:balancingwith "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's Situation 2 business card correctly identifies the states of licensure (B, C, D) and includes a mailing address in State E, providing recipients at the business meeting with accurate information about the geographic scope of licensure." ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "Situation 2 represents compliant conduct: the PE designation is accompanied by full disclosure of states of licensure and a mailing address, satisfying the qualification transparency obligation even when presenting in an unlicensed state." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:tensionresolution "Full disclosure of states of licensure resolves the potential tension between using the PE title in an unlicensed state and the transparency obligation." ; proeth:textreferences "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.648898"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Qualification_Transparency_Satisfied_By_Engineer_A_Situation_3_Business_Card a proeth:QualificationTransparencyinProfessionalTitleUse, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Qualification Transparency Satisfied By Engineer A Situation 3 Business Card" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card distributed in State C accurately reflecting State B offices and State C-only licensure" ; proeth:balancingwith "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's Situation 3 business card accurately discloses that offices are in State B but licensure is in State C only, providing recipients in State C with accurate information about the geographic scope of licensure and the location of business operations." ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The card's explicit identification of the single state of licensure (State C) and the location of offices (State B) satisfies the qualification transparency obligation by enabling recipients to understand the engineer's licensure scope." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Qualification Transparency in Professional Title Use" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:tensionresolution "Accurate disclosure of the single-state licensure limitation resolves any potential concern about misleading recipients regarding practice authority." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.649218"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_1 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_1" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671301"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_10 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_10" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671676"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_11 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_11" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671709"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_12 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_12" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671761"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_13 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_13" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671795"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_14 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_14" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671827"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_15 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_15" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671857"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_16 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_16" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671887"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_17 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_17" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671919"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_2 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_2" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671335"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_3 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_3" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671366"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_4 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_4" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671395"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_5 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_5" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671424"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_6 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_6" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671505"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_7 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_7" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671541"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_8 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_8" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671572"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:QuestionEmergence_9 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "QuestionEmergence_9" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671621"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_1 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_1" ; proeth:questionNumber 1 ; proeth:questionText "Were Engineer A’s actions ethical in situations (1), (2), (3), and (4)?" ; proeth:questionType "board_explicit" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667060"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_101 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_101" ; proeth:questionNumber 101 ; proeth:questionText "Does the omission of a physical mailing address on a business card constitute a material misrepresentation of qualifications under the NSPE Code, or is it better characterized as an incomplete disclosure — and does that distinction change the ethical analysis for Situation 1?" ; proeth:questionType "implicit" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667116"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_102 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_102" ; proeth:questionNumber 102 ; proeth:questionText "At what point does a business card transition from a passive identification instrument into an active solicitation of engineering services, and should that threshold affect whether distributing a card in an unlicensed jurisdiction constitutes a violation of state registration laws?" ; proeth:questionType "implicit" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667207"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_103 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_103" ; proeth:questionNumber 103 ; proeth:questionText "If Engineer A in Situation 3 were to begin performing engineering services in State B — where he holds no license — would the existing business card, which accurately describes his current non-engineering consulting role, immediately become ethically deficient, and what obligation does Engineer A have to proactively update his marketing materials before that transition occurs?" ; proeth:questionType "implicit" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667264"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_104 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_104" ; proeth:questionNumber 104 ; proeth:questionText "Does the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical — despite Engineer A listing a State E address without State E licensure — implicitly establish a precedent that explicit licensure disclosure can cure an otherwise misleading geographic representation, and if so, how much ambiguity can explicit disclosure legitimately offset?" ; proeth:questionType "implicit" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667320"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_201 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_201" ; proeth:questionNumber 201 ; proeth:questionText "Does the principle of Antitrust and Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics conflict with the Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance obligation, such that engineers in multi-state practice may invoke commercial free speech to justify distributing business cards in unlicensed jurisdictions even when state registration laws would otherwise prohibit it?" ; proeth:questionType "principle_tension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667374"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_202 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_202" ; proeth:questionNumber 202 ; proeth:questionText "Does the Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition invoked against Engineer D conflict with the Licensure Integrity and Public Protection principle, given that engineers have a general professional duty to report potential violations — and if so, how should the threshold of epistemic certainty required before filing a complaint be calibrated to honor both principles simultaneously?" ; proeth:questionType "principle_tension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667429"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_203 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_203" ; proeth:questionNumber 203 ; proeth:questionText "Does the principle of Qualification Transparency — which drove the finding that Situation 1 is unethical due to omission of licensure jurisdictions — conflict with the Business Card as Non-Solicitation Instrument principle, which implies that a card handed out in a social or general business context carries a lower duty of comprehensive disclosure than a formal engineering proposal or advertisement?" ; proeth:questionType "principle_tension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667500"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_204 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_204" ; proeth:questionNumber 204 ; proeth:questionText "Does the Non-Engineering Expert Services Permissibility principle — which validates Engineer A's Situation 3 card because he performs only non-engineering consulting in State B — conflict with the Honesty in Professional Representations principle, insofar as displaying the 'P.E.' title on a card associated with a State B office may lead recipients to infer that licensed engineering services are available from that office, regardless of Engineer A's actual service scope?" ; proeth:questionType "principle_tension" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667575"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_301 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_301" ; proeth:questionNumber 301 ; proeth:questionText "From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A in Situation 1 fulfill a categorical duty of non-deception by distributing a business card that omitted both a physical mailing address and the states in which licensure was held, regardless of whether any recipient was actually misled?" ; proeth:questionType "theoretical" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667634"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_302 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_302" ; proeth:questionNumber 302 ; proeth:questionText "From a consequentialist perspective, does the Board's finding that Situation 2 is ethical — despite Engineer A listing a State E address without State E licensure — produce better public-protection outcomes than a stricter rule requiring address-licensure geographic alignment, and does the explicit disclosure of licensed states adequately offset the inferential risk created by the address mismatch?" ; proeth:questionType "theoretical" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667690"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_303 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_303" ; proeth:questionNumber 303 ; proeth:questionText "From a virtue ethics standpoint, does Engineer D's decision to file a licensure board complaint against Engineer A in Situation 4 — based entirely on secondhand information about a card distributed in a social context — reflect the professional virtues of prudence, fairness, and epistemic humility that the NSPE Code expects of engineers who invoke reporting obligations?" ; proeth:questionType "theoretical" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667746"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_304 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_304" ; proeth:questionNumber 304 ; proeth:questionText "From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's duty of honesty in professional representations impose a strict obligation on Engineer A in Situation 3 to clarify on the business card that the State B office location is associated only with non-engineering consulting services, or is the card's explicit notation that licensure is held only in State C sufficient to discharge that duty when the card is distributed in State C?" ; proeth:questionType "theoretical" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667801"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_401 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_401" ; proeth:questionNumber 401 ; proeth:questionText "Would Engineer A's Situation 1 business card have been deemed ethical if it had listed only the states of licensure without including a physical mailing address — that is, does the Board's finding of a violation rest primarily on the address omission, the licensure-state omission, or the combination of both, and would correcting only one of those deficiencies have been sufficient?" ; proeth:questionType "counterfactual" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667854"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_402 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_402" ; proeth:questionNumber 402 ; proeth:questionText "If Engineer A in Situation 2 had listed a State E address without explicitly identifying the states of licensure on the card, would the Board have reached the same conclusion as in Situation 1 — and does this counterfactual confirm that explicit licensure-state disclosure is the single most critical variable distinguishing ethical from unethical multi-state business card practice?" ; proeth:questionType "counterfactual" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667907"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_403 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_403" ; proeth:questionNumber 403 ; proeth:questionText "What if Engineer A in Situation 3 had been performing engineering services — not merely non-engineering consulting — out of the State B office while holding only a State C license: would the business card's notation of State B offices have then constituted a material misrepresentation of licensure status sufficient to render the card unethical, and how would that change the Board's analysis of the office-licensure differentiation principle?" ; proeth:questionType "counterfactual" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.667999"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Question_404 a proeth-cases:EthicalQuestion, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Question_404" ; proeth:questionNumber 404 ; proeth:questionText "If Engineer D in Situation 4 had personally witnessed Engineer A distributing the State B business card in State C — rather than receiving the card secondhand through Friend X — would the Board's conclusion about the propriety of Engineer D's complaint have changed, and does the social-visit context independently immunize the card distribution from ethical scrutiny regardless of how Engineer D learned of it?" ; proeth:questionType "counterfactual" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.668057"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Report_Engineer_A_to_Licensure_Board a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Report Engineer A to Licensure Board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Action" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671463"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_1 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_1" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671950"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_10 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_10" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672285"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_11 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_11" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672321"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_12 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_12" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672369"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_13 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_13" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672402"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_14 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_14" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672434"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_15 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_15" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672464"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_16 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_16" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672495"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_17 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_17" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672525"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_18 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_18" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672554"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_19 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_19" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672583"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_2 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_2" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.671980"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_20 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_20" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672612"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_21 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_21" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672641"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_22 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_22" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673066"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_23 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_23" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673136"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_24 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_24" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673180"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_25 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_25" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673213"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_26 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_26" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673245"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_27 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_27" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673276"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_28 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_28" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673324"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_29 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_29" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673357"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_3 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_3" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672010"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_30 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_30" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.673389"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_4 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_4" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672039"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_5 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_5" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672069"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_6 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_6" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672098"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_7 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_7" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672127"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_8 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_8" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672158"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:ResolutionPattern_9 a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "ResolutionPattern_9" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:30:39.672227"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Share_Card_With_Engineer_D a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Share Card With Engineer D" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Action" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.671375"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Share Card With Engineer D (Action 5) → Licensure Board Report Filed (Event 5)" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672164"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-NoLicensureStates a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-NoLicensureStates" ; proeth:activeperiod "From the moment Engineer A distributes the business card at the State E business meeting" ; proeth:affectedparties "Business meeting recipients in State E", "Engineer A", "State E licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:stateclass "Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's business card distribution in State E (Situation 1)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Card revision to include licensure states or clarifying information" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A hands out a business card in State E bearing 'P.E.' designation without listing a mailing address or the states in which he is licensed" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.640416"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-Truthfulness-Constraint a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-Truthfulness-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributed a PE-designated business card at a business meeting in State E (where not licensed) that omitted a physical address and did not identify the states of licensure (B, C, D)." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's business card distributed at the State E business meeting was constrained to include a physical address and identify the states of licensure; the absence of a physical address rendered the card non-compliant with the truthfulness and non-deception requirement, as it created ambiguity about Engineer A's licensure jurisdiction." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; State engineering licensure laws" ; proeth:sourcetext "business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer" ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business card distribution at State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable", "a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive", "business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.663525"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-BusinessCard-NoLicensureStates-Constraint a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-BusinessCard-NoLicensureStates-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributed a business card at a business meeting in State E listing only name, phone, fax, and email — with no mailing address and no identification of licensure states — despite holding licensure only in States B, C, and D." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained from distributing a PE-designated business card at a professional business meeting in State E without identifying the specific states (B, C, D) in which he holds licensure, as such omission creates ambiguity about the geographic scope of his licensed authority." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business meeting distribution in State E" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.654565"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-BusinessCard-NoPhysicalAddress-Constraint a proeth:BusinessCardPhysicalAddressInclusionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-BusinessCard-NoPhysicalAddress-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's Situation 1 business card lacked both a mailing address and licensure state identification, creating maximum ambiguity about his licensed jurisdiction at a professional business meeting." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Physical Address Inclusion Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained from distributing a PE-designated business card at a professional business meeting without including a physical mailing address, as the absence of an address prevents recipients from identifying the geographic jurisdiction of his practice and licensure." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business meeting distribution in State E" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.654706"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-PE-Title-Unlicensed-StateE-Constraint a proeth:EngineeringCredentialTitleJurisdictionalScopeTriggeringConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-PE-Title-Unlicensed-StateE-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A is not licensed in State E but distributed a PE-designated card at a professional business meeting there, potentially implying State E licensure authority." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 1)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's use of the PE title on a business card distributed at a professional meeting in State E — where he is not licensed — triggered State E's engineering practice act requirements, constraining him to either hold State E licensure or clearly disclaim that his PE designation applies only to States B, C, and D." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business meeting distribution in State E" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C, and D.", "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.654854"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-Sit2-Sit3-QualificationsNonMisrepresentation-Constraint a proeth:Non-DeceptionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-Sit2-Sit3-QualificationsNonMisrepresentation-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Situations 1, 2, and 3 each present variations of the same core non-deception constraint: Engineer A's business card must not create false impressions about his licensure jurisdiction through omission or misleading address/office information." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situations 1, 2, and 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Non-Deception (Constraint)" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained by the non-deception principle from distributing PE-designated business cards that — through omission of licensure states, inclusion of addresses in unlicensed states without clarification, or listing of offices in unlicensed states — created false impressions about the geographic scope of his licensed engineering authority." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Non-Deception Ethical Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:temporalscope "Throughout all professional business card distribution activities" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only.", "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.656916"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit1-TitleInvocation-UnlicensedJurisdiction a proeth:EngineeringTitleInvocationTriggeringLicensureObligationState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit1-TitleInvocation-UnlicensedJurisdiction" ; proeth:activeperiod "During and after the State E business meeting where the card is distributed" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "Recipients of the card", "State E licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:stateclass "Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's use of 'P.E.' title in State E without State E licensure (Situation 1)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Clarification of licensure scope or cessation of card distribution in State E" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card lists Engineer A's name, phone, fax, and e-mail address but does not list a mailing address, nor does it identify the states in which Engineer A is licensed" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A invokes the 'P.E.' designation on a business card distributed in State E, a jurisdiction where he is not licensed" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.640686"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-Constraint a proeth:Address-ImpliedLicensureJurisdictionNon-DeceptionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's Situation 2 card listed a State E mailing address alongside explicit B/C/D licensure identification — the explicit licensure disclosure mitigates but does not fully eliminate the potential for address-implied licensure confusion." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Address-Implied Licensure Jurisdiction Non-Deception Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained from listing a State E mailing address on his PE-designated business card without clearly identifying that his licensure is held only in States B, C, and D — not State E — to prevent recipients from inferring that the State E address implies State E licensure." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business meeting distribution in State E" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D.", "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.655033"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-StateE a proeth:Address-LicensureJurisdictionMismatchState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit2-AddressLicensureMismatch-StateE" ; proeth:activeperiod "From distribution of the card at the State E business meeting onward" ; proeth:affectedparties "Business meeting recipients in State E", "Engineer A", "State E licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:stateclass "Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's business card listing State E address without State E licensure (Situation 2)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Card revision to clarify non-licensure in State E, or acquisition of State E licensure" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is invited to a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A distributes a card listing a State E mailing address while licensed only in States B, C, and D — not State E" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.642454"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit2-BusinessCard-AddressLicensureDisclosure-Compliant a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit2-BusinessCard-AddressLicensureDisclosure-Compliant" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributed a PE-designated business card listing a State E residence address but explicitly identifying States B, C, and D as the states of licensure — satisfying the non-deception requirement." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's business card in Situation 2 satisfied the geographic clarity constraint by listing a State E residence address and explicitly identifying the out-of-state jurisdictions (B, C, D) in which licensure is held, thereby avoiding any false impression of State E licensure." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed" ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business card distribution at State E business meeting" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed", "If the engineer is not licensed in the state where he/she resides (or where his/her business resides) as per the physical address, then the card should clearly indicate the state(s) in which the person is licensed", "The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there", "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.663796"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit2-BusinessCard-Ambiguity-AddressMismatch a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit2-BusinessCard-Ambiguity-AddressMismatch" ; proeth:activeperiod "From distribution of the card at the State E business meeting onward" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "State E business meeting recipients" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E" ; proeth:stateclass "Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's business card creating false inference of State E licensure through address listing (Situation 2)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Card revision or explicit clarification to recipients" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A distributes a card in State E that lists a State E address but does not include State E among licensed jurisdictions, creating ambiguity about professional availability in State E" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.642650"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit2-ExplicitLicensureDisclosure-Mitigating-Constraint a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit2-ExplicitLicensureDisclosure-Mitigating-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Situation 2 represents the compliant scenario where explicit licensure state identification accompanies the address, satisfying the geographic clarity requirement despite the address-licensure jurisdiction mismatch." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 2)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A satisfied the business card licensure geographic clarity constraint in Situation 2 by explicitly identifying States B, C, and D as his licensure jurisdictions on the card, even though the card also listed a State E mailing address — the explicit licensure disclosure prevents the address from creating a false impression of State E licensure." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "low" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business meeting distribution in State E" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card indicates that Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D and lists Engineer A's mailing address, etc. in State E." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.655198"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureDifferentiation-Compliant a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureDifferentiation-Compliant" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's card noted State B offices while identifying States B, C, D as licensure states; a business development engineer distributed the card in a state where the firm held licensure." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's business card in Situation 3 satisfied the geographic clarity constraint by clearly differentiating the State B office location from the states of licensure (B, C, D), with no deception about the scope of licensed authority, and the business development representative's distribution was permissible because the firm held licensure in the relevant state." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11" ; proeth:sourcetext "Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice" ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business card distribution by business development representative" ; proeth:textreferences "By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice", "Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice", "this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.664071"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureMismatch-StateB a proeth:Address-LicensureJurisdictionMismatchState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-BusinessCard-OfficeLicensureMismatch-StateB" ; proeth:activeperiod "Ongoing while the card is in circulation" ; proeth:affectedparties "Card recipients", "Engineer A", "State B licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.86" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only" ; proeth:stateclass "Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's card listing State B offices while holding only State C licensure (Situation 3)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Card revision, State B licensure obtained, or explicit disclaimer added" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Business card lists State B offices but identifies State C as the only licensure jurisdiction, creating inference that engineering services are available from State B without State B licensure" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.643275"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-BusinessDevelopmentRep-FirmLicensureBacked-Permissible a proeth:BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirm-Licensure-BackedSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-BusinessDevelopmentRep-FirmLicensureBacked-Permissible" ; proeth:casecontext "A business development engineer (not personally licensed in the target state) distributed cards and solicited work on behalf of a firm that did have licensed engineers in the state." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Business Development Engineer (Situation 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure-Backed Solicitation Permissibility Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "The business development engineer's distribution of business cards and engagement in business development activities in the target state was permissible only because the firm represented had engineers duly licensed in that state; had the firm lacked licensed engineers in the state, such solicitation would have been prohibited as deceptive and contrary to state engineering laws." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering licensure and solicitation laws" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:temporalscope "During business development activities in target state" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card", "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state", "prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical", "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.664683"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-Counterfactual-UnlicensedFirm-BusinessDevelopment-Prohibited a proeth:BusinessDevelopmentRepresentativeFirm-Licensure-BackedSolicitationPermissibilityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-Counterfactual-UnlicensedFirm-BusinessDevelopment-Prohibited" ; proeth:casecontext "Hypothetical scenario where a business development engineer solicits work in a state where neither the engineer nor the firm holds licensure." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Business Development Engineer (Situation 3 Counterfactual — Unlicensed Firm)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Development Representative Firm-Licensure-Backed Solicitation Permissibility Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "In the counterfactual where the firm has no licensed engineers in the target state, the business development engineer is absolutely prohibited from engaging in business development solicitation activities in that state, as such conduct constitutes deception that goes beyond business card distribution and violates the intent of state engineering laws." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; State engineering licensure and solicitation laws" ; proeth:sourcetext "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:temporalscope "During any business development activities in target state where firm is unlicensed" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card", "prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical", "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.664920"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-NonEngineeringServices-StateB-Scope-Constraint a proeth:ScopeofPracticeConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-NonEngineeringServices-StateB-Scope-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B while holding PE licensure only in State C — his practice in State B is constrained to non-engineering services to avoid unlicensed engineering practice." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.91" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Scope of Practice Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained to perform only non-engineering consulting services in State B — where he is not licensed as a PE — and could not perform engineering services in State B without obtaining State B licensure, regardless of his PE status in State C." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B." ; proeth:temporalscope "Throughout Engineer A's residence and practice in State B" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.655549"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-OfficeLicensureDifferentiation-Constraint a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureGeographicClarityConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-OfficeLicensureDifferentiation-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A's Situation 3 card notes State B offices but State C-only licensure — the card is distributed in State C, creating potential confusion about whether the State B office location implies State B PE licensure." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Licensure Geographic Clarity Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained to clearly differentiate on his business card that his offices are in State B (where he is not licensed as a PE) while his PE licensure is held only in State C, so that recipients distributing the card in State C are not misled into believing he holds State B PE licensure." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11; Business Card Licensure Representation Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business card distribution in State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A hands out his business card in State C.", "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.655382"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-PE-Title-StateB-NonEngineering-Constraint a proeth:EngineeringCredentialTitleJurisdictionalScopeTriggeringConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-PE-Title-StateB-NonEngineering-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "The combination of PE title and State B office notation on the card creates risk of implying State B PE licensure, which Engineer A does not hold." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.86" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Engineering Credential Title Jurisdictional Scope Triggering Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's use of the PE title on a business card noting State B offices — where he is not licensed — constrained him to clearly disclaim on the card that his PE designation applies only to State C, to prevent the PE title from implying State B engineering practice authority." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; NSPE Code of Ethics" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of business card distribution in State C and any distribution in State B" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.655726"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-StateB-NonEngineering-LicensureCompliance-Constraint a proeth:StateLicensingActEngineeringTitleUseStatutoryComplianceConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-StateB-NonEngineering-LicensureCompliance-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A holds PE licensure only in State C but maintains offices in State B and uses the PE title on his business card — State B's engineering practice act constrains his use of the PE title in connection with State B activities." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 3)" ; proeth:constraintclass "State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Statutory Compliance Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A was constrained by State B's engineering practice act to refrain from using the PE title in connection with any engineering services performed in State B, where he holds no PE licensure — his use of the PE title on a card noting State B offices must be accompanied by clear disclosure that the PE designation applies only to State C licensure." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "State B Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; State Licensing Act Engineering Title Use Requirements" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:temporalscope "Throughout Engineer A's residence and practice in State B" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B.", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.657078"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit3-TitleInvocation-StateB-NonEngineeringServices a proeth:EngineeringTitleInvocationTriggeringLicensureObligationState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit3-TitleInvocation-StateB-NonEngineeringServices" ; proeth:activeperiod "Ongoing while Engineer A distributes the card and maintains State B offices without State B licensure" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "Recipients of the card in State C", "State B licensing board", "State C licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only" ; proeth:stateclass "Engineering Title Invocation Triggering Licensure Obligation State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's use of 'P.E.' title on card noting State B offices while licensed only in State C (Situation 3)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Acquisition of State B licensure, removal of State B office reference, or cessation of engineering title use on card" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A hands out his business card in State C", "Engineer A resides and performs non-engineering consulting services in State B", "Engineer A's business card notes that Engineer A's offices are in State B but that Engineer A is licensed in State C only" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A's business card notes State B offices and invokes engineering credentials while Engineer A is licensed only in State C and performs non-engineering consulting in State B" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.643099"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-AntitrustContext-AdvertisingEthics-Constraint a proeth:Antitrust-ConstrainedProfessionalCodeGuidanceProhibitionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-AntitrustContext-AdvertisingEthics-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "The BER's analysis of engineering business card ethics occurs within a legal framework shaped by antitrust actions and First Amendment rulings that limit how broadly professional codes can restrict engineering advertising and self-promotion." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:constrainedentity "NSPE Board of Ethical Review (Situation 4 analysis context)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Antitrust-Constrained Professional Code Guidance Prohibition Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "The BER's ethical analysis of Engineer A's business card distribution practices was constrained by antitrust law and First Amendment commercial free speech principles — prohibiting the BER from issuing guidance that would restrict legitimate engineering advertising and self-promotion beyond what is required to prevent actual deception or misrepresentation of licensure status." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "First Amendment Commercial Free Speech Antitrust Legal Challenges; BER Cases 79-6, 82-1, 84-2" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E." ; proeth:temporalscope "Throughout BER analysis of all four situations" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A participates in a business meeting in State E and hands out a business card indicating that he is a P.E.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.656764"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-BusinessCard-StateB-SocialDistribution a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-BusinessCard-StateB-SocialDistribution" ; proeth:activeperiod "From Friend X's redistribution of the card to Engineer D through licensing board resolution" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "Engineer D", "State C licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information" ; proeth:stateclass "Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's State B-only business card appearing in State C through social redistribution (Situation 4)" ; proeth:terminatedby "Licensing board determination that social distribution without solicitation intent does not constitute licensure misrepresentation" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X" ; proeth:triggeringevent "A card containing only State B information appears in State C, creating potential ambiguity about whether Engineer A is soliciting or representing engineering credentials in State C" ; proeth:urgencylevel "low" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.643882"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-EngineerD-EpistemicVerification-Constraint a proeth:EpistemicVerificationBeforeCompetitorRegulatoryViolationReportConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-EngineerD-EpistemicVerification-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D received only secondhand information from a non-engineer (Friend X) about Engineer A's business card distribution in a social context, yet filed a formal licensing board complaint without apparent independent verification." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Epistemic Verification Before Competitor Regulatory Violation Report Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer D was constrained to independently verify the factual basis of the alleged licensure violation — including confirming that Engineer A actually solicited engineering services in State C, that the distribution was professional rather than social, and that State C's licensure rules actually prohibit the specific conduct alleged — before filing a formal complaint with the State C licensing board based solely on Friend X's secondhand account." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Epistemic Verification Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:temporalscope "Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.656276"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-EngineerD-IncompleteCritique-Constraint a proeth:IncompleteCircumstantialKnowledgeCritiqueProhibitionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-EngineerD-IncompleteCritique-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D lacked full knowledge of the circumstances of Engineer A's card distribution — specifically the social context, the non-engineer recipient, and the State B-specific card content — before filing a formal complaint." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.84" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer D was constrained from filing a formal licensure complaint against Engineer A without full knowledge of the circumstances — including the social nature of the card distribution, the non-engineer status of the recipient, and the State B-specific content of the card — as criticism and formal complaints offered without complete contextual knowledge are inherently unreliable and potentially harmful to Engineer A's professional reputation." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7; Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge Critique Prohibition Standard" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:temporalscope "Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.656616"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-EngineerD-SecondhandRestraint-Constraint a proeth:SecondhandInformationComplaintFilingRestraintConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-EngineerD-SecondhandRestraint-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer D's complaint was based entirely on secondhand information from a non-engineer friend, concerning conduct that occurred in a social context — multiple factors required heightened restraint and verification before formal complaint filing." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer D was constrained to exercise heightened restraint before filing a licensure board complaint against Engineer A based solely on Friend X's secondhand account of a social-context business card distribution, as the secondhand nature of the information, the social context of the original distribution, and the non-engineer status of the intermediary all required independent verification before formal complaint filing." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:severity "high" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; Professional Reciprocity Standards" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:temporalscope "Prior to filing complaint with State C licensing board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.656443"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-SocialContext-BusinessCard-NoViolation a proeth:BusinessCardNon-Offer-to-WorkScopeLimitationConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-SocialContext-BusinessCard-NoViolation" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A distributed a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C; the card was subsequently brought to the State C licensing board by Engineer D." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Business Card Non-Offer-to-Work Scope Limitation Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's distribution of a State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social occasion in State C was not constrained by solicitation or licensure advertising rules, because the act of handing out a business card in a social context does not constitute an offer to do work and therefore does not trigger state solicitation prohibitions." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:07:00.176996+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "low" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 04-11" ; proeth:sourcetext "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code" ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of social occasion business card distribution in State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C", "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code", "the act of an engineer handing out a business card is an expression of accepted business etiquette and does not, ipso facto, rise to the level of an offer to do work" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.664357"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-SocialContext-NonViolation-Constraint a proeth:SocialContextBusinessCardDistributionNon-ViolationConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-SocialContext-NonViolation-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer A gave his State B business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C — no engineering services were solicited or offered, and the card contained only accurate State B information." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.85" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer A (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Social Context Business Card Distribution Non-Violation Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer A's distribution of his State B-only business card to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C did not violate licensure or advertising ethics constraints, because the distribution occurred in a purely social context with no solicitation of engineering services — constraining licensing boards and fellow engineers from treating such social distribution as a licensure violation." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "low" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws; BER Case 04-11" ; proeth:sourcetext "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of social visit to State C" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.655903"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-NonAttribution-Constraint a proeth:Third-PartyBusinessCardRedistributionNon-AttributionConstraint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-NonAttribution-Constraint" ; proeth:casecontext "Friend X independently shared Engineer A's State B business card with Engineer D, who then reported Engineer A to the State C licensing board — the redistribution was Friend X's independent act, not Engineer A's." ; proeth:conceptCategory "Constraint" ; proeth:confidence "0.82" ; proeth:constrainedentity "Engineer D (Situation 4)" ; proeth:constraintclass "Third-Party Business Card Redistribution Non-Attribution Constraint" ; proeth:constraintstatement "Engineer D was constrained from attributing Friend X's independent redistribution of Engineer A's business card into State C to Engineer A as a licensure violation, because Engineer A's ethical obligations attached only to his own act of distribution — which occurred in a social context to a non-engineer — and not to Friend X's subsequent independent act of sharing the card with Engineer D." ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:59:38.779140+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:severity "medium" ; proeth:source "NSPE Code of Ethics; State Engineering Licensure Registration Laws" ; proeth:sourcetext "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:temporalscope "At time of Engineer D's complaint filing decision" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board.", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.656075"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC a proeth:Third-PartyBusinessCardRedistributioninUnlicensedJurisdictionState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC" ; proeth:activeperiod "From the moment Friend X shares the card with Engineer D through resolution of the licensing board complaint" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "Engineer D", "Friend X", "State C licensing board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:14.956856+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X" ; proeth:stateclass "Third-Party Business Card Redistribution in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State" ; proeth:subject "Friend X's redistribution of Engineer A's State B business card to Engineer D in State C (Situation 4)" ; proeth:terminatedby "State C licensing board determination; clarification of Engineer A's non-solicitation intent" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board", "Friend X shares the card with Engineer D, telling Engineer D that Engineer A recently gave Friend X the card while visiting State C", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Friend X independently shares Engineer A's business card — distributed socially, not professionally — with Engineer D in State C, where Engineer A is not licensed" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.643603"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Situation_1_-_No_Physical_Address_Business_Card_Ambiguity a proeth:BusinessCardLicensureAmbiguityState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 1 - No Physical Address Business Card Ambiguity" ; proeth:activeperiod "From distribution of the business card through any correction or replacement with an address-bearing card" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "Recipients of the business card", "State E engineering licensure board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E" ; proeth:stateclass "Business Card Licensure Ambiguity State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's business card lacking a physical address in Situation 1" ; proeth:terminatedby "Replacement of card with one bearing a physical address identifying licensure jurisdiction" ; proeth:textreferences "Situation (1) presents a circumstance that could easily raise questions concerning Engineer A being perceived as a 'professional engineer' in a state where he/she is not licensed, e.g., State E", "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable", "business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A distributes a business card that contains no physical address, preventing recipients from inferring the jurisdiction of licensure" ; proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.646301"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Situation_1_Physical_Address_Omission_Ethical_Violation a proeth:BusinessCardMailingAddressDisclosureObligationinMulti-StatePractice, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethical Violation" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Situation 1 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:balancingwith "Honesty in Professional Representations", "Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's business card in Situation 1 omits a physical address, creating an unresolvable ambiguity about which state's licensure the PE designation refers to, rendering the card ethically unacceptable" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The absence of a physical address prevents recipients from applying the conventional address-licensure inference and thus prevents them from determining whether the engineer is licensed in their jurisdiction — this ambiguity itself constitutes a form of deception by omission" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Business Card Mailing Address Disclosure Obligation in Multi-State Practice" ; proeth:sourcetext "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves this by treating the omission of an address as ethically impermissible regardless of intent, because it creates the conditions for public misunderstanding about licensure status" ; proeth:textreferences "The business card in Situation (1) does not identify a physical address, and for this reason the scenario is not acceptable", "to avoid confusion or any appearance of deception about licensure, business cards should identify a physical address for the engineer" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.658527"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Situation_2_-_Address-Licensure_Mismatch_with_Explicit_Licensure_Disclosure a proeth:Address-LicensureJurisdictionMismatchState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 2 - Address-Licensure Mismatch with Explicit Licensure Disclosure" ; proeth:activeperiod "Ongoing while Engineer A resides in State E and holds licensure only in other states" ; proeth:affectedparties "Business meeting attendees in State E", "Engineer A", "State E engineering licensure board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed" ; proeth:stateclass "Address-Licensure Jurisdiction Mismatch State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's business card in Situation 2, listing State E residence address with explicit out-of-state licensure identification" ; proeth:terminatedby "Engineer A obtains State E licensure, or relocates address to a licensed jurisdiction" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed", "If the engineer is not licensed in the state where he/she resides (or where his/her business resides) as per the physical address, then the card should clearly indicate the state(s) in which the person is licensed", "The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there", "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer A attends a business meeting in State E and distributes a card showing State E address with explicit identification of licensed states (not State E)" ; proeth:urgencylevel "low" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.646580"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a proeth:ConventionalAddress-LicensureInferenceandRebuttalObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 2 Conventional Presumption Rebuttal — Ethical Compliance" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Situation 2 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:balancingwith "PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's Situation 2 card lists a State E address but affirmatively identifies the states of actual licensure (B, C, D), successfully rebutting the conventional presumption and satisfying the honesty obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.93" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "By affirmatively listing licensure states, the engineer provides recipients with the information needed to understand that the PE designation does not extend to State E, thereby preventing the misleading impression that would otherwise arise from the address-licensure convention" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Conventional Address-Licensure Inference and Rebuttal Obligation" ; proeth:sourcetext "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive." ; proeth:tensionresolution "No tension — the engineer's affirmative disclosure satisfies both the letter and spirit of the honesty obligation" ; proeth:textreferences "In Situation (2), Engineer A identifies his residence as State E, the state in which he is attending the business meeting, and also identifies the states in which he is licensed.", "The clear representation is that Engineer A is not licensed in State E even though his business address is there.", "Under the NSPE Code of Ethics, Engineer A's actions are truthful and not deceptive.", "a conventional assumption prevails; namely, that the engineer whose name and 'P.E.' designation appears on a business card is licensed in the state indicated by the physical address on the card" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.658763"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Situation_3_-_Business_Development_Representative_with_Firm_Licensure_Backing a proeth:LicensedFirmRepresentativeBusinessDevelopmentinJurisdictionState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 3 - Business Development Representative with Firm Licensure Backing" ; proeth:activeperiod "Duration of business development activities in the jurisdiction, contingent on firm maintaining licensure there" ; proeth:affectedparties "Business development engineer", "Engineering firm", "Prospective clients in the jurisdiction", "State licensure board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:stateclass "Licensed Firm Representative Business Development in Jurisdiction State" ; proeth:subject "Business development engineer distributing cards in a state where the firm (but not the individual) holds licensure" ; proeth:terminatedby "Firm loses licensure in the jurisdiction, or representative ceases business development activities there" ; proeth:textreferences "it is within the bounds of ethical activity for a representative of an engineering firm – for example, an engineer who focuses on business development – to tender business cards at both business and social functions in such states, even if that person is not personally licensed in the state, provided that the firm which the person represents does have engineers who are duly licensed in the state", "who will represent the firm in its engineering activities there" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineering firm deploys a business development representative to solicit work in a state where the firm has licensed engineers but the representative is not personally licensed" ; proeth:urgencylevel "low" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.647359"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Situation_3_Counterfactual_-_Unlicensed_Firm_Business_Development_Solicitation a proeth:UnlicensedFirmBusinessDevelopmentSolicitationState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 3 Counterfactual - Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation" ; proeth:activeperiod "Duration of solicitation activities in the jurisdiction without firm licensure" ; proeth:affectedparties "Business development engineer", "Engineering firm", "Prospective clients", "State licensure board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:sourcetext "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:stateclass "Unlicensed Firm Business Development Solicitation State" ; proeth:subject "Hypothetical business development engineer soliciting work for a firm with no licensed engineers in the target jurisdiction" ; proeth:terminatedby "Firm obtains licensure in the jurisdiction, or ceases solicitation activities" ; proeth:textreferences "This type of situation amounts to deception and goes beyond the fact of tendering a business card", "prospecting for work would not appear to satisfy the intent of the state's engineering laws and regulations and therefore would not be ethical", "this Board feels it would not be ethical for this same (business development) engineer to engage in business development activities if that person's firm did not have engineers who were duly licensed in the state" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Business development representative prospects for engineering work in a jurisdiction where neither the representative nor the firm's engineers hold licensure" ; proeth:urgencylevel "high" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.647684"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a proeth:SocialContextPETitleDisplayNon-ViolationPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 3 Non-Engineering Consulting with Accurate Card — Ethical Compliance" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Situation 3 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:balancingwith "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation", "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A in Situation 3 has offices in State B but is licensed only in State C; performs non-engineering consulting in State B; distributes a card in State C accurately reflecting licensure — the Board finds this ethically acceptable because the card is accurate and the work performed in State B is non-engineering" ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "Where an engineer's card accurately reflects licensure and the work performed in the unlicensed state is non-engineering consulting, no deception occurs and no ethics violation is present" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves any apparent tension by focusing on the accuracy of the card and the non-engineering character of the State B work, finding no deception and no violation of state registration laws" ; proeth:textreferences "By the same line of reasoning, Situation (3) also describes an ethically acceptable practice.", "this Board does not view the act of handing out a business card by an individual who is not licensed in a state as unethical as long as there is no deception and the engineer is conforming with state registration laws and rules and practice" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.659091"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Situation_4_-_Third-Party_Social_Context_Business_Card_Redistribution a proeth:Third-PartyBusinessCardRedistributioninUnlicensedJurisdictionState, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 4 - Third-Party Social Context Business Card Redistribution" ; proeth:activeperiod "From Engineer D's submission to the State C licensure board through resolution of the board inquiry" ; proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A", "Engineer D", "State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:conceptCategory "State" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:52:58.966138+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C" ; proeth:stateclass "Third-Party Business Card Redistribution in Unlicensed Jurisdiction State" ; proeth:subject "Engineer A's business card distributed at a social occasion in State C and subsequently brought to the State C licensure board by Engineer D" ; proeth:terminatedby "State C licensure board resolves the matter, finding no violation" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C", "the Board notes in passing that it would appear that Engineer D did not exercise appropriate judgment and discretion by bringing this matter to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:triggeringevent "Engineer D brings Engineer A's business card (distributed socially, not professionally) to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:urgencylevel "low" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.647930"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . a proeth:SocialContextPETitleDisplayNon-ViolationPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution — No Violation" ; proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter", "Friend X Social Context Business Card Recipient" ; proeth:balancingwith "PE Title Omission of Licensure Jurisdiction Disclosure Obligation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A distributes his State B business card during a social visit to State C to a non-engineer friend; the Board finds no ethics violation because the distribution was social, not intended as a representation of licensure in State C" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:interpretation "The social context and non-engineer recipient eliminate the professional reliance concern that underlies the licensure disclosure obligation; no member of the public is being misled into relying on the engineer's State C licensure status" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves the tension in favor of no violation by emphasizing the absence of professional purpose and the non-engineer character of the recipient" ; proeth:textreferences "Clearly Engineer A's distribution of his business card during a social occasion was entirely proper and was not intended as a representation that Engineer A was licensed in State C.", "the Board can see no violation of the NSPE Code." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.659320"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Social_Context_PE_Title_Display_Non-Violation_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Situation_4 a proeth:SocialContextPETitleDisplayNon-ViolationPrinciple, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Invoked By Engineer A Situation 4" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card given to Friend X during social visit to State C" ; proeth:balancingwith "Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation", "Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A provides a State B business card (accurate for State B where licensed) to a non-engineer friend during a social visit to State C; this social, non-business context means no engineering services are being solicited and no member of the public is being misled about licensure status for professional purposes." ; proeth:confidence "0.87" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:55:27.009831+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The social context and non-engineer recipient distinguish this situation from professional business card distribution; the card's content is accurate for State B, and no professional solicitation is occurring in State C." ; proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Situation 4 Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:principleclass "Social Context PE Title Display Non-Violation Principle" ; proeth:sourcetext "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The social context and non-engineer recipient mean that the public protection rationale for licensure title restrictions does not apply; no ethics violation occurs." ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in State B and his business card contains only State B information.", "On a social visit to State C, Engineer A provides his business card to a non-engineer Friend X." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.649386"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:State_Engineering_Licensure_Registration_Laws a proeth:EngineeringLicensureLaw, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "State_Engineering_Licensure_Registration_Laws" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:createdby "State legislatures and licensing boards" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "State Engineering Licensure and Registration Laws" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "Engineering Licensure Law" ; proeth:sourcetext "the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state." ; proeth:textreferences "some states have regulations which prohibit engineers or engineering firms from seeking or performing work in a particular state unless the engineer or engineering firm is duly licensed or registered in that state.", "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice.", "the states have laws which restrict engineering practice to those persons who are duly licensed in that particular state." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Cited as the legal framework restricting engineering practice and solicitation to duly licensed persons; governs whether business card distribution constitutes an unlawful offer to perform work" ; proeth:version "Varies by state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.645531"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:State_Licensing_Board_Rules_Solicitation a proeth:StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "State_Licensing_Board_Rules_Solicitation" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:createdby "State engineering licensing boards" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "State Engineering Licensing Board Rules on Solicitation" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:51:57.247946+00:00" ; proeth:importance "medium" ; proeth:resourceclass "State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct" ; proeth:sourcetext "The Board acknowledges that engineering licensure board rules and regulations in certain states prohibit engineers or engineering firms from soliciting work unless those persons are duly licensed in those states." ; proeth:textreferences "The Board acknowledges that engineering licensure board rules and regulations in certain states prohibit engineers or engineering firms from soliciting work unless those persons are duly licensed in those states." ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:usedincontext "Referenced as state-level regulatory rules that in certain states prohibit engineers or firms from soliciting work unless duly licensed; applied to evaluate the ethics of business development activities" ; proeth:version "Varies by state" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.646022"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:State_Licensing_Board_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct_Instance a proeth:StateLicensingBoardRulesofProfessionalConduct, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "State_Licensing_Board_Rules_of_Professional_Conduct_Instance" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.9" ; proeth:createdby "State engineering licensing boards of States B, C, D, and E" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:documenttitle "State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct (States B, C, D, E)" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T21:50:37.406007+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct" ; proeth:sourcetext "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is licensed in States B, C and D", "Engineer D reports Engineer A to the State C engineering licensure board" ; proeth:usedby "Engineer D when reporting Engineer A to the State C licensing board; Engineer A in determining permissible representations" ; proeth:usedincontext "State-level regulatory rules governing how engineers may represent their licensure status in professional materials such as business cards, and the procedures by which complaints may be filed with and adjudicated by state licensing boards" ; proeth:version "Current at time of case" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.639523"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:Truthful_Non-Deceptive_Advertising_Obligation_Invoked_in_Business_Card_Context a proeth:HonestyinProfessionalRepresentations, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Obligation Invoked in Business Card Context" ; proeth:appliedto "Business card advertising practices generally", "Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Business Card Presenter" ; proeth:balancingwith "Antitrust-Constrained Ethics Code Scope Principle", "Free and Open Competition as Engineering Ethics Boundary Condition" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board identifies truthfulness and non-deception as the primary ethical standard governing how engineers represent themselves through advertising and business cards, requiring that all such communications avoid misleading impressions about licensure status" ; proeth:confidence "0.92" ; proeth:discoveredincase "128" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "128" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:02:21.234939+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "In the business card context, the honesty obligation requires not merely literal accuracy but the overall impression conveyed — a card that omits address information or fails to identify licensure states may be technically incomplete rather than false, but still violates the spirit of the honesty obligation" ; proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:principleclass "Honesty in Professional Representations" ; proeth:sourcetext "a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive" ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolves the tension by focusing on deception as the operative harm: advertising is ethically permissible as long as it is truthful and non-deceptive, regardless of its commercial character" ; proeth:textreferences "a fundamental principle is that such advertising must be conducted in a manner that is truthful and not misleading or deceptive", "such activities must conform to state registration laws and rules of practice", "the engineer's obligation is not just to satisfy the letter but also the spirit of the Code, consistent with upholding the dignity and integrity of the profession" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 128 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.657367"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:historical_era_of_calling_cards_before_contemporary_use_of_business_cards a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "historical era of calling cards before contemporary use of business cards" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672791"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" . case128:legal_challenges_to_professional_society_codes_of_ethics_before_current_tempered_approach_to_advertising_ethics a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "legal challenges to professional society codes of ethics before current tempered approach to advertising ethics" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T22:14:48.672310"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 128 Extraction" .